[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:0.373 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site