Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 4 Nov 2001 19:10:14 -0800 | From | Mike Fedyk <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] vm_swap_full |
| |
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:58:17PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > On November 4, 2001 09:08 pm, Mike Fedyk wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 02:36:34PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > > > -/* Swap 50% full? Release swapcache more aggressively.. */ > > > > -#define vm_swap_full() (nr_swap_pages*2 < total_swap_pages) > > > > +/* Free swap less than inactive pages? Release swapcache more > > > > aggressively.. */ +#define vm_swap_full() (nr_swap_pages < > > > > nr_inactive_pages) > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > Makes absolutely no sense for systems which have more > > > swap than RAM, eg. a 64MB system with 200MB of swap. > > > > How does the inactive list get bigger than physical ram? > > > > If swap is bigger than ram, there is *no* possibility of the inactive list > > being bigger than swap, and thus no aggressive swapping... > > nr_swap_pages is the number of swap pages free.
Oh, I thought it was total swap pages...
>The idea is to start > aggressive swap only when we are at risk of running out of swap. This way > we get to take full advantage of throwing away clean pages that are backed > up by swap when under vm pressure. > Yes. My point is that the inactive list can't get bigger than RAM, and thus if swap is bigger than ram this case wouldn't trigger...
But now that nr_swap_pages is *free* swap, you'll have to add another test for (swap > RAM)...
Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |