Re: Inclusion of zoned inactive/free shortage patch

From: Marcelo Tosatti (
Date: Wed Jul 18 2001 - 15:58:55 EST

On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > Ok, I understand and I agree with doing _unconditional_
> > "zone_inactive_plenty()" instead of conditional
> > "zone_inactive_shortage()".
> >
> > This way we do not get _strict_ zoned behaviour (with strict I mean only
> > doing scanning for zones which have a shortage), making the shortage
> > handling smoother and doing "fair" aging in cases where there are not
> > specific zones under pressure.
> Cool.
> Willing to write a patch and give it some preliminary testing?

Sure. However its not _that_ easy. We do have a global inactive target.

There is no perzone inactive shortage, which is needed to calculate

> I also agree with the patch Rik sent in about GFP_HIGHUSER, that's
> orthogonal though (even if I suspect it could also have made the
> problem _appear_ much much more clearly).


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 21:00:11 EST