Re: [PATCH 02/12] mm: supporting variables and functions for balanced zone aging

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:30:15PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >  But lines 865-866 together with line 846 make most shrink_zone() invocations
> >  only run one batch of scan. The numbers become:
> 
> True.  Need to go into a huddle with the changelogs, but I have a feeling
> that lines 865 and 866 aren't very important.  What happens if we remove
> them?

Maybe the answer is: can we accept to free 15M memory at one time for a 64G zone?
(Or can we simply increase the DEF_PRIORITY?)

btw, maybe it's time to lower the low_mem_reserve.
There should be no need to keep ~50M free memory with the balancing patch.

Regards,
Wu