Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Jun 1998 13:41:34 +0200 (CEST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: kswapd's priority |
| |
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > <H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl> said: > > > There's only one problem with that: tasks don't wait for > > memory. If the memory's there they grab it, otherwise they > > try to free some theirselves; and if that fails, they die. > > They don't wait yet. Arguably, they should do, or else we effectively > have multiple copies of kswapd active at once, which is not > necessarily a Good Thing. The interactions between the multiple > instances of try_to_free_page may seriously impede our attempts to > defragment and cluster the swap IOs.
They don't. All try_to_free_page() calls are made with WAIT=0. Only after a certain number of tries the async swap pages are synced to disk, this is going to give relatively good swap clustering.
Besides, when there are parrallel programs calling try_to_free_page(), this just means that we're very low on memory and have to free loads of it... This might just be a Good Thing :)
Rik. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl | | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |