[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.0-test9 - poor swap performance on low end machines
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> Limited sets of configurations may have left holes in the testing.
> Upper zones much larger than lower zones basically want the things
> to be unequal. It probably wants the replacement load spread
> proportionally in general or some such nonsense.

Yeah. In some configurations 2.4-rmap takes care of this
automagically since part of the replacement isn't as
pressure driven as in 2.4 mainline and 2.6, ie. some of
the aging is done independantly of allocation pressure.

Still, inter-zone balancing is HARD to get right. I'm
currently trying to absorb all of the 2.6 VM balancing
into my mind (*sound effects of brain turning to slush*)
to find any possible imbalances.

Some of the test results I have seen make me very

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

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 13:59    [W:0.056 / U:2.804 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site