Re: arca-vm-8 [Re: [patch] arca-vm-6, killed kswapd [Re: [patch] new-vm , improvement , [Re: 2.2.0 B
Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:51:11 -0800 (PST)
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > The basic reason I didn't want to do this was that I thought it was wrong
> > to try to base _any_ decision on any virtual memory sizes. The reason is
> > simply that I think RSS isn't a very interesting thing to look at.
>
> But now I am not looking at RSS, I am looking only at total_vm. The point
> of the patch is only to be _balanced_ between passes even if in the system
> there are some processes with a total_vm of 1Giga and some processes that
> has a total_vm of 1kbyte. In normal conditions the patch _should_ make no
> differences... This in my theory at least ;)
Ehh, and how do you protect against somebody playing games with your mind
by doing _huge_ mappings of something that takes no real memory? The VM
footprint of a process is not necessarily related to how much physical
memory you use.
Basically, I think the thing should either be simple or right, and yours
is somewhere in between - neither simple nor strictly correct.
Also, I've been happily deleting code, and it has worked wonderfully. This
patch adds logic and code back.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/