On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:58:17PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> On November 4, 2001 09:08 pm, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 02:36:34PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > > > -/* Swap 50% full? Release swapcache more aggressively.. */
> > > > -#define vm_swap_full() (nr_swap_pages*2 < total_swap_pages)
> > > > +/* Free swap less than inactive pages? Release swapcache more
> > > > aggressively.. */ +#define vm_swap_full() (nr_swap_pages <
> > > > nr_inactive_pages)
> > > >
> > > > Comments?
> > >
> > > Makes absolutely no sense for systems which have more
> > > swap than RAM, eg. a 64MB system with 200MB of swap.
> >
> > How does the inactive list get bigger than physical ram?
> >
> > If swap is bigger than ram, there is *no* possibility of the inactive list
> > being bigger than swap, and thus no aggressive swapping...
>
> nr_swap_pages is the number of swap pages free.
Oh, I thought it was total swap pages...
>The idea is to start
> aggressive swap only when we are at risk of running out of swap. This way
> we get to take full advantage of throwing away clean pages that are backed
> up by swap when under vm pressure.
>
Yes. My point is that the inactive list can't get bigger than RAM, and thus
if swap is bigger than ram this case wouldn't trigger...
But now that nr_swap_pages is *free* swap, you'll have to add another test
for (swap > RAM)...
Mike
-
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 - 21:00:25 EST