From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:36:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:36:20 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:57745 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:36:19 -0400 Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 18:37:44 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Andrew Morton Cc: Rik van Riel , lkml Subject: Re: [patch] adjustments to dirty memory thresholds Message-ID: <20020901013744.GM888@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , lkml References: <3D6D82A3.A3A0C7F0@zip.com.au> <3D6D8C88.BD4180CF@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D6D8C88.BD4180CF@zip.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 07:52:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Eeeks indeed. But the main variables really are memory size, > IO bandwidth and workload. That's manageable. > The traditional toss-it-in-and-see-who-complains approach will > catch the weird corner cases but it's slow turnaround. I guess > as long as we know what the code is trying to do then it should be > fairly straightforward to verify that it's doing it. Okay, not sure which in the thread to respond to, but since I can't find a public statement to this effect, in my testing, all 3 OOM patches behave identically. Cheers, Bill