On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Looks like a nice extensible interface to me.
>
> The only thing is, I expect we will not want to wake
> up processes most of the time, when there is no memory
> pressure, because that would just waste battery power
> and/or cpu time that could be used for something else.
>
> The desire to avoid such wakeups makes it harder to
> wake up processes at arbitrary points set by the API.
Sure. You could either bump up the threshold or use Minchan's hooks - or both.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Another issue is that we might be running two programs
> on the system, each with a different threshold for
> "lets free some of my cache". Say one program sets
> the threshold at 20% free/cache memory, the other
> program at 10%.
>
> We could end up with the first process continually
> throwing away its caches, while the second process
> never gives its unused memory back to the kernel.
>
> I am not sure what the right thing to do would be...
One option is to use per-process thresholds on RSS, for example, and
also support system-wide thresholds.
That said, I'd really like to see the N9 and Android policies
supported with this ABI. It's much easier to make it generic once we
support real-world use cases.
Pekka
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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