[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Subtle MM bug
Simon Kirby <> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:47:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > And this _is_ a downside, there's no question about it. There's the worry
> > about the potential loss of locality, but there's also the fact that you
> > effectively need a bigger swap partition with 2.4.x - never mind that
> > large portions of the allocations may never be used. You still need the
> > disk space for good VM behaviour.
> >
> > There are always trade-offs, I think the 2.4.x tradeoff is a good one.
> Hmm, perhaps you could clarify...
> For boxes that rarely ever use swap with 2.2, will they now need more
> swap space on 2.4 to perform well, or just boxes which don't have enough
> RAM to handle everything nicely?

Just boxes that were already short on memory (swapped a lot) will need
more swap, empirically up to 4 times as much. If you already had
enough memory than things will stay almost the same for you.

But anyway, after some testing I've done recently I would now not
recommend anybody to have less than 2 x RAM size swap partition.

> I've always been tending to make swap partitions smaller lately, as it
> helps in the case where we have to wait for a runaway process to eat up
> all of the swap space before it gets killed. Making the swap size
> smaller speeds up the time it takes for this to happen, albeit something
> which isn't supposed to happen anyway.

Well, if you continue with that practice now you will be even more
successful in killing such processes, I would say. :)
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 13:28    [W:0.110 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site