[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: why swap at all?
FabF wrote:

> As I said, I think this thread is "becoming offtopic" but what can be
> interesting is the swapping problem fragmentation :
> 1.Global inactivity (what you're talking about)
> 2.Application isolation (what we're talking about).
> Geek or not, someone backgrounding an application doesn't want it to
> down the box for X seconds some minutes later when it comes back and
> such things arrive many times a day.Maybe you've got an idea about a
> better rule(s) then ? (I mean for the 2 cases)

Maybe what we need is a per-process tuner like nice, for swap candidacy.
Unfortunately doing it right is probably 2.7 material, you want users to
be able to set it DOWN for seldom used things, but not UP where they
could hog the system. And I think 'right' also means having a capability
for setting it UP again, etc.

Note that there are some hooks which *might* be useful for quick user,
there is a sticky bit which seems pretty unused in practice, and which
might cause pages to be marked less likely to swap. You could implement
in exec() to do the setting, with whatever access control seems useful.

Just a thought, I'm pretty well convinced that Nick's latest patches
have reduced the problem, at least for me. I'll try to get some metrics
on the measured effect, but the "feel" is better by far.

-bill davidsen (
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
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:0.148 / U:19.232 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site