On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Byron Stanoszek wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Dietmar Kling wrote:
> >
> > > i thought i add a report to the new VM in 2.4.0pre9
> > > When I tried to restart my work after 2 hours,
> > > the machine started swapping madly.
> >
> > Does this swapping storm get less (or even go
> > away?) when you apply my small patch to test9-pre1?
> >
> > http://www.surriel.com/patches/2.4.0-t9-vmpatch
>
> I think I might have a similar problem with 2.4.0-t8-vmpatch2,
> The size of the buffers increased to 16mb as expected, but also
> the amount of memory 'in use' also increased by 16mb! Free
> shows:
> I'm trying test9 to see if that behaves any better, then I'll try
> 2.4.0-t9-vmpatch.
>
> Have you encountered this buffer problem before, Rik?
It's not a problem per se. The VM patch is more agressive
against the cache, and as such less likely to eat into
the RSS of processes.
OTOH, maybe we want to do /some/ background swapping of
sleeping tasks, to smooth out the VM a bit at the point
where we start to run into the situation where we need
to swap something out...
regards,
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 21:00:13 EST