On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 13:07 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:27:21 -0700 > Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'll go try and dig for some more specifics on the hardware so we at > > least have something to test on. > > How's that digging coming along? > > I'm pretty wobbly about this patch. Perhaps we should set > RECLAIM_DISTANCE to pi/2 or something, to force people to correctly set > the dang thing in initscripts. The original change in the hardware tables was for the benefit of a benchmark. Said benchmark isn't going to get run on mainline until the next batch of enterprise distros drops, at which point the hardware where this was done will be irrelevant for the benchmark. I'm sure any new hardware will just set this distance to another yet arbitrary value to make the kernel do what it wants. :) Also, when the hardware got _set_ to this initially, I complained. So, I guess I'm getting my way now, with this patch. I'm cool with it: Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- Dave -- 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>