On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue 03-05-11 10:01:27, Ying Han wrote: >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:25 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue 03-05-11 16:45:23, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> >> 2011/5/3 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxx>: >> >> > On Sun 01-05-11 15:06:02, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> >> >> > On Mon 25-04-11 18:28:49, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > [...] >> >> >> Can you please clarify this? I feel it is not opposite semantics. >> >> > >> >> > In the global reclaim low watermark represents the point when we _start_ >> >> > background reclaim while high watermark is the _stopper_. Watermarks are >> >> > based on the free memory while this proposal makes it based on the used >> >> > memory. >> >> > I understand that the result is same in the end but it is really >> >> > confusing because you have to switch your mindset from free to used and >> >> > from under the limit to above the limit. >> >> >> >> Ah, right. So, do you have an alternative idea? >> > >> > Why cannot we just keep the global reclaim semantic and make it free >> > memory (hard_limit - usage_in_bytes) based with low limit as the trigger >> > for reclaiming? >> > [...] >> The current scheme > > What is the current scheme? using the "usage_in_bytes" instead of "free" --Ying > >> is closer to the global bg reclaim which the low is triggering reclaim >> and high is stopping reclaim. And we can only use the "usage" to keep >> the same API. > > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs > SUSE LINUX s.r.o. > Lihovarska 1060/12 > 190 00 Praha 9 > Czech Republic > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>