On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Lorenzo Allegrucci wrote:
> >
> >Does "free" after a run has completed imply that there's still lots of
> >swap used? We _should_ have gotten rid of it at "free_swap_and_cache()"
> >time, but if we missed it..
>
> 70.590u 7.640s 2:31.06 51.7% 0+0k 0+0io 19036pf+0w
> lenstra:~/src/qsort> free
> total used free shared buffers cached
> Mem: 255984 6008 249976 0 100 1096
> -/+ buffers/cache: 4812 251172
> Swap: 195512 5080 190432
That's not a noticeable amount, and is perfectly explainable by simply
having deamons that got swapped out with truly inactive pages. So a
swapcache leak does not seem to be the reason for the unstable numbers.
> >What happens if you make the "vm_swap_full()" define in <linux/swap.h> be
> >unconditionally defined to "1"?
>
> 70.530u 7.290s 2:33.26 50.7% 0+0k 0+0io 19689pf+0w
> 70.830u 7.100s 2:29.52 52.1% 0+0k 0+0io 18488pf+0w
> 70.560u 6.840s 2:28.66 52.0% 0+0k 0+0io 18203pf+0w
>
> Performace improved and numbers stabilized.
Indeed.
Mind doing some more tests? In particular, the "vm_swap_full()" macro is
only used in two places: mm/memory.c and mm/swapfile.c. Are you willing to
test _which_ one (or is it both together) it is that seems to bring on the
unstable numbers?
Linus
-
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 Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:24 EST