Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:59:42 +0100 | From | Roger Luethi <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.0-test9 - poor swap performance on low end machines |
| |
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:37:34 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > Yes it will show improvement, and I would like to hear how much given how
I've been sitting on my data because I was waiting for the missing pieces from my test box, but here's a data point: For my test case, your patch improves run time from 500 to 440 seconds.
> simple it is, but I agree with you. There is an intrinsic difference in the > vm in 2.6 that makes it too hard for multiple running applications to have a
My (probably surprising to many) finding is that there _isn't_ an intrinsic difference which makes 2.6 suck. There are a number of _separate_ issues, and they are only related in their contribution to making 2.6 thrashing behavior abysmal.
What I'm trying to find out is whether the issues are intrinsic to a change in some mechanisms (which typically means it's a price we have to pay for other benefits) or if they are just problems with the implementation. I had tracked down vm_swappiness as one problem, and your solution shows that the implementation could indeed be improved without touching the fundamental VM workings at all.
Roger - 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/
| |