[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] arca-vm-19 [Re: Results: Zlatko's new vm patch]
    > On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > > I produced a new arca-vm-19. I would like if you could try it. I don't
    > It seems that the better algorithm I am be able to invent is been the
    > growing_swap_cache one (the one in arca-vm-16). Steve could you try this
    > new patch (arca-vm-20) against real 2.2.0-pre7? I think that it should be
    > still better than arca-vm-16 + SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX=512.
    > If it will be not very good could you do:
    > echo 8 2 4 512 512 512 > /proc/sys/vm/pager
    > and try again? (such numbers should be the same of setting
    > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX in arca-vm-16, but as default only the max_async_pages is
    > set to 512 because I think it's been the only one that made a difference).
    > If this will be not the best again you could apply the filemap.c patch I
    > sent you in the last email (the one that return to put the shrink_mmap()
    > weight exponential increasing in function of priority) and try again?

    Hi Andrea!

    I tested vm20 against bare 2.2.0-pre7 and it doesn't do the job 8*(

    The system is a little bit more responsive while doing a 12G mke2fs
    now only taking about 10-20 seconds ;-( to bring up another kvt
    compared to end of mke2fs without vm20.

    But compared to < 2.2.0 VM this is about at least 10-20!!! times slower.

    The system (2*PII/350, 256M RAM) swaps out 30MB (kvts etc.) for _no_
    obvious reason with paging rates up to > 100/s ?!

    I don't like 1 process eating up main memory for buffer/page cache
    _and_ thereby causing swaping out inactive others.

    Other testers reported the same effect, if the system runs
    for some days under medium load.

    /proc,sys/vm/{buffermemm, pagecache} are gone now because they haven't been
    used any longer, but at least i liked them.

    Why not keep that interface and the thereby implied limits in the kernel
    VM to allow the admin to set them to 100% if he likes to?

    Sorry if this sounds too bad, but to my opinion this behaviour is an absolute
    _must_ change before the final 2.2 release!

    Keep up the good work,



    Systemmanagement Entwicklungsbereich 2 Deutsche Telekom AG
    Entwicklungszentrum Darmstadt
    Heinz Mauelshagen Otto-Roehm-Strasse 71c
    Postfach 10 05 41 64205 Darmstadt
    +49 6151 886-425

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.022 / U:34.348 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site