[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1204105498.6242.374.camel@lappy>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:44:58 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] page reclaim throttle take2
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 14:31 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> You mentioned CONFIG_NUM_RECLAIM_THREADS_PER_CPU and not
> CONFIG_NUM_RECLAIM_THREADS_PER_NODE. The advantage with syscalls is that even if
> we get the thing wrong, the system administrator has an alternative. Please look
> through the existing sysctl's and you'll see what I mean. What is wrong with
> providing the flexibility that comes with sysctl? We cannot possibly think of
> all situations and come up with the right answer for a heuristic. Why not come
> up with a default and let everyone use what works for them?
I agree with Balbir, just turn it into a sysctl, its easy enough to do,
and those who need it will thank you for it instead of curse you for
hard coding it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists