Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: swap cache | Date | Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:11:12 +0100 | From | Helge Hafting <> |
| |
[...] > >This whole thread is domitated by "one process at a time" thinking. > > Not on my part. I'm making several different claims about compressed > caching, which I should have been careful to distinguish (sorry): > > 1. for small diskless systems, it's a win > > 2. for small systems with slow disks, or where > power consumption is an issue, it's a win > > 3. for I/O bound systems, it's a win, > > 4. for CPU-bound systems, it can turn itself off and avoid > being a lose > > 5. for systems that are CPU-bound sometimes and disk-bound > sometimes, it can adapt and do the right thing in each > case It may adapt and do the right thing when writing to swap. There is no choice when data is read from the swap device though. You could fault in a bunch of compressed pages in one process while another process is doing something cpu-intensive.
Helge Hafting
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |