Re: vmscan.c heuristic adjustment for smaller systems

From: Marc Singer
Date: Sun Apr 18 2004 - 00:07:21 EST

On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 06:06:16PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 02:33:33PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> This doesn't match your first response. Anyway, this one is gets
> >> scrapped. I guess if swappiness solves it, then so much the better.
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 02:52:57PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > Huh? Where do you see a discrepency? I don't think I claimed that
> > the test program performance changed. The noticeable difference is in
> > interactivity once the page cache fills. IMHO, 30 seconds to do a
> > file listing on /proc is extreme.
> Oh, sorry, it was unclear to me that the test changed anything but
> swappiness (i.e. I couldn't tell they included the patch etc.)

Ah, OK. Now I understand your confusion. Based on the numbers, it is
clear that your last patch does exactly the same thing as setting
swappiness. It is true that I didn't apply it. Still, I think that
your change is worth consideration since setting swappiness to zero is
such a blunt solution. I apologize for not making this clear before.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at