Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 4 Mar 2001 15:14:15 -0300 (BRST) | | From | Rik van Riel <> | | Subject | Re: [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/
|  |