Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:05:30 -0700 | From | Marc Singer <> | Subject | Re: vmscan.c heuristic adjustment for smaller systems |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |