Re: [TINY patch] VM compromise?

From: Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br)
Date: Sun Mar 04 2001 - 13:14:15 EST


On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> Why do I think it works?
>
> 1. kswapd attempting to fix everything in one run doesn't take
> into account that tasks not only allocate, they also free. If
> we try to fix everything, we're usually assuring an overreaction.
>
> 2. scanning a little more agressively brings the cache shrinkage
> to swap ratio to something more realistic for this work load..
> and I strongly suspect many others as well.

Looking great.

Alan, could you please include this in the next -ac kernel ?

regards,

Rik

--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 07 2001 - 21:00:15 EST