![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 07:35:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Marc Singer <elf@buici.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > IMHO, the VM on a desktop system really should be optimised to > > > > have the best interactive behaviour, meaning decent latency > > > > when switching applications. > > > > > > I'm gonna stick my fingers in my ears and sing "la la la" until people tell > > > me "I set swappiness to zero and it didn't do what I wanted it to do". > > > > It does, but it's a bit too coarse of a solution. It just means that > > the page cache always loses. > > That's what people have been asking for. What are you suggesting should > happen instead? I'm thinking that the problem is that the page cache is greedier that most people expect. For example, if I could hold the page cache to be under a specific size, then I could do some performance measurements. E.g, compile kernel with a 768K page cache, 512K, 256K and 128K. On a machine with loads of RAM, where's the optimal page cache size? - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||