> So in your case, it should *result* in the exact same situation that your > patch did, but at the same time, when dealing with the (more common) case > of smaller allocations, we still continue to try to avoid being too close > to the top-of-memory. > > So it's not perfect, but perhaps it is a good compromise between being > careful and having to make room? > > Does this work for your case?
I'm not totally happy with changing the generic code like that, to possibly not enforce "min" anymore. Other archs may have very good reasons to provide a min value here... Though at the same time, at least on powerpc, the parent resource of the host bridge will be the real limit, so that may not be a big issue. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
