Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 21 Aug 2001 06:52:11 +0200 (CEST) | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.8/2.4.9 VM problems |
| |
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On August 20, 2001 09:14 pm, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > On August 20, 2001 05:40 pm, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > I'll give your patch a shot. In the meantime, below is what I did > > > > to it here. I might have busted use_once all to pieces ;-) but it > > > > cured my problem, so I'll show it anyway. > > > > > > No, this doesn't break it at all, what it does is require the IO page > > > to be touched more times before it's considered truly active. This > > > partly takes care of the theory that an intial burst of activity on > > > the page should be considered as only one use. > > > > (it turns it into a ~sortof used twiceish in my specific case I think.. > > Actually, used-thriceish. > > > the aging must happen to make it work right though.. very very tricky. > > I doubt the aging has much to do with it, what's more important is the length > of the inactive_dirty queue. Of course, aging affects that and so does > scanning policy, both a little "uncalibrated" at the moment. > > > Nope, I don't have anything other than a 'rough visual' to work with.. > > might be totally out there ;-) > > What made you think of trying the higher activation threshold? ;-)
Well :)) there I sat daydreaming, imagining myself as a bonnie page running around queues, got dizzy and finally just changed the little spot that kept attracting my eyeballs.. a hunch.
-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/
|  |