On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > I am encouraged by Craig's test results, which show that
> > rmap did a LOT less swapin IO and rmap with page aging even
> > less. The fact that it did too much swapout IO means one
> > part of the system needs tuning but doesn't say much about
> > the thing as a whole.
> btw., isnt there a fair chance that by 'fixing' the aging+rmap code to
> swap out less, you'll ultimately swap in more? [because the extra swappout
> likely ended up freeing up RAM as well, which in turn decreases the amount
> of trashing.]
Possibly, but I expect the 'extra' swapouts to be caused
by page_launder writing out too many pages at once and not
just the ones it wants to free.
Cleaning pages and freeing them are separate operations,
what is missing is a mechanism to clean enoughh pages but
not all inactive pages at once ;)
-- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.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 : Sun Jun 30 2002 - 22:00:07 EST