[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: why swap at all?
    On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 13:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
    > On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:38, FabF wrote:
    > > On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 01:17, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
    > > > In article <> you
    > wrote:
    > > > > out (unlike some, I don't mind if Mozilla or OpenOffice end up out on
    > > > > disk after extended inactivity - but if my window manager gets swapped
    > > > > out, I get peeved when focus-follows-mouse doesn't and my typing goes
    > > > > into the wrong window or some such... ;)
    > > >
    > > > Yes but: your wm is so often used/activated it will not get swaped out.
    > > > But if your mouse passes over mozilla and tries to focus it, then you
    > > > will feel the pain of a swapped-out x program.
    > >
    > > Exactly !
    > > Does autoregulated VM swap. patch could help here ?
    > Unless you are pushing the limits of your available ram by your usage pattern
    > then yes the autoregulated swappiness patch should help.
    > available here:
    > Just a brief word that might clarify things for people. It seems this huge
    > swap discussion centres around 2 different arguments. Akpm has said that the
    > correct way for the vm to behave is that of swappiness=100. Desktop users
    > note they have less swap out of the programs they use with swappiness 0 or
    > their swap turned off. When your swappiness is set high, the current vm
    > decisions are the fastest they can be, but when you go back to your
    > applications they will take longer to restart. When your swappiness is set
    > low your applications will restart rapidly, but the current vm will be doing
    > more work and be slower. Most benchmarks will show the latter, but most
    > desktop users will feel the former and not really notice the latter.
    > Try the little experiment to see: Boot with mem=128M and try to compile a 2.6
    > kernel with all the debugging symbols option enabled - do this with
    > swappiness set to 0 and then at 100. You'll see it compile much faster at
    > 100. Yet you know that if you set your swappiness to 0 mozilla will load
    > faster next time you use it on your desktop during your normal usage pattern
    > (of course you'd probably be using mozilla on a system with a bit more than
    > 128M ram but this helps demonstrate the point).
    > Does this explain in coarse examples to the desktop users why ideal systems
    > shouldn't be swap disabled or swappiness=0 ?
    > The autoregulated swappiness patch tries to get some sort of common ground,
    > where it sacrifices performance slightly currently to improve what happens
    > the next time you use your machine substantially. Because it changes with the
    > amount of application pages in ram, it will not increasingly sacrifice
    > performance when your memory is full with application pages. What it will not
    > do is improve the swap thrash situation when you have grossly overloaded your
    > ram.
    > Con

    My box rocks with you patch Con ! Swappiness is floating between 50->65.
    I never saw a 2.6 box so quick in rl5.

    Thanks !

    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 14:03    [W:0.024 / U:0.932 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site