lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [W:0.039 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site