[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: ~500 megs cached yet 2.6.5 goes into swap hell
    On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 01:08, Timothy Miller wrote:
    > Agreed. And this is why I suggested not adding another knob but rather
    > going with the existing nice value.
    > Mind you, this shouldn't necessarily be done without some kind of
    > experimentation. Put two knobs in the kernel and try varying them to
    > each other to see what sorts of jobs, if any, would benefit in a
    > disparity between cpu-nice and io-nice. If there IS a significant
    > difference, then add the extra knob. If there isn't, then don't.

    Thought experiment: what would happen when you set the hypothetical
    cpu-nice and io-nice knobs very differently?

    * cpu-nice 20, io-nice -20: Read I/O will finish immediately, but then
    the process will have to wait for ages to get a CPU slice to process the
    data, so why would you want to read it so quickly? The process can do as
    much write I/O as it wants, but why is it not okay to take ages to write
    the data if it's okay to take ages to produce it?

    * cpu-nice -20, io-nice 20: Read I/O will take ages, but once the data
    gets there, the processor is immediately taken to process the data as
    fast as possible. If it was okay to take ages to read the data, why
    would you want to process it as soon as you can? It makes some sense for
    write I/O though: produce data as fast as the other processes will allow
    you to write it. But if you're going to hog the CPU completely, why give
    other processes the chance to do a lot of I/O while they don't get the
    CPU time to submit any I/O? Going for a smaller difference makes more

    As far as I can tell, giving the knobs very different values doesn't
    make much sense. The same arguments go for medium-sized differences. And
    if we're going to give the knobs only *slightly* different values, we
    might as well make them the same. If we really need cpu-nice = 0 and
    io-nice = 3 somewhere, then I think that's a sign of a kernel problem,
    where the kernel's various nice-knobs aren't calibrated correctly to
    result in the same amount of "niceness" when they're set to the same
    value. And cpu-nice = io-nice = 3 would probably have about the same

    BTW, if there *are* going to be more knobs, I suggest adding
    "memory-nice" as well. :) If you set memory-nice to 20, then the process
    will not kick out much memory from other processes (it will require more
    I/O -- but that can be throttled using io-nice). If you set memory-nice
    to -20, then the process will kick out the memory of all other processes
    if it needs to.

    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 14:02    [W:0.022 / U:2.228 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site