On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 03:23:03PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > "such a tradeoff" ?
> >
> > While this sounds reasonable, I have to point out that
> > up to now nobody has described exactly WHAT tradeoff
> > they'd like to make tunable and why...
>
> Amount of pages reclaimed from swapout_mm() versus amount of
> pages reclaimed from caches.
>
> A value that says: "use XX% of my main memory for RSS of
> processes, even if I run heavy disk loadf now" would be nice.
>
> For general purpose machines, where I run several services but
> also play games, this would allow both to survive.
>
> The external services would go slower. Who cares, if some CVS
> updates or NFS services go slower, if I can play my favorite game
> at full speed? ;-)
Remember that the executable and data of that game reside
in the filesystem cache. This "double counting" makes it
quite a bit harder to actually implement what seems like
a simple tradeoff.
regards,
Rik
-- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtmlVirtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 23 2001 - 21:00:30 EST