Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:29:59 +1000 | From | Con Kolivas <> | Subject | Re: Autotune swappiness01 |
| |
R. J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday 26 of July 2004 11:31, Con Kolivas wrote: > >>R. J. Wysocki wrote: >> >>>On Monday 26 of July 2004 03:09, Con Kolivas wrote: >>> >>>>Con Kolivas writes: >>>> >>>>>Andrew Morton writes: >>>>> >>>>>>Seriously, we've seen placebo effects before... >>>>> >>>>>I am in full agreement there... It's easy to see that applications do >>>>>not swap out overnight; but i'm having difficulty trying to find a way >>>>>to demonstrate the other part. I guess timing the "linking the kernel >>>>>with full debug" on a low memory box is measurable. >>>> >>>>I should have said - finding a swappiness that ensures not swapping out >>>>applications with updatedb, then using that same swappiness value to do >>>>the linking test. >>> >>>Please excuse me, but is that viable at all? IMHO, it's just like trying >>>to tune a radio including volume with only one knob. I don't say it >>>won't work, but the probability that it will is rather small, it seems >>>... >> >>Well that's what we want. I cant remember other desktop operating >>systems setting a root only control between night and day, or between >>copying ISOs and running applications or... > > > I agree, but isn't it related to the fact that other desktop OSes usually > don't run anything like updatedb nightly? > > Perhaps we need a bit more sophisticated swap algorithm than other OSes do. > For example, couldn't we add an additional parameter to control the swapping > "behavior", apart from the swappiness? Something like adding the second knob > in my radio example? Just thinking,
I think one knob is one knob too many already. However as Andrew has pointed out there are server workloads that want swappiness of 100, hence I leave the knob in place.
Proof is in the pudding. Try my patch and/or post an alternative.
Cheers, Con [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |