[lkml]   [2001]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.4.4-ac10
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:

> Hi,
> On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 07:44:39PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > This is the core of why we cannot (IMHO) have a discussion
> > of whether a patch introducing new VM tunables can go in:
> > there is no clear overview of exactly what would need to be
> > tunable and how it would help.
> It's worse than that. The workload on most typical systems is not
> static. The VM *must* be able to cope with dynamic workloads. You
> might twiddle all the knobs on your system to make your database run
> faster, but end up in such a situation that the next time a mail flood
> arrives for sendmail, the whole box locks up because the VM can no
> longer adapt.
> That's the main problem with static parameters. The problem you are
> trying to solve is fundamentally dynamic in most cases (which is also
> why magic numbers tend to suck in the VM.)

Yup. The problems are dynamic even with my static test load.

Off the top of my head, if I could make a suggestion to the vm it
would be something like "don't let dirty pages lay idle any longer
than this" and maybe "reclaim cleaned pages older than that".


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.233 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site