lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [TINY patch] VM compromise?
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> Why do I think it works?
>
> 1. kswapd attempting to fix everything in one run doesn't take
> into account that tasks not only allocate, they also free. If
> we try to fix everything, we're usually assuring an overreaction.
>
> 2. scanning a little more agressively brings the cache shrinkage
> to swap ratio to something more realistic for this work load..
> and I strongly suspect many others as well.

Looking great.

Alan, could you please include this in the next -ac kernel ?

regards,

Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...

http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and my Meterkast|Read the blog