[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 5/18] mark swapout pages PageWriteback()

    On Sun, 26 May 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > But I recall you saying that there was advantage in keeping swapout pages
    > locked so that aggressive memory users would throttle against their
    > own swapout. What's the story there?

    The advantage is not the lock itself, as much as having people who page in
    swap pages be delayed on them - which ends up slowing down processes that
    swap a lot.

    BUT: that could equally well be done by doing a "wait_on_writeback()" or
    similar, and it could also be a tunable thing (ie wait on writeback only
    when we actually need to slow them down). In particular, _not_ slowing
    them down does improve throughput, it just makes it really really nasty
    from an interactive standpoint under some loads.

    I don't know. I have this feeling that it would be good to try to share
    all the semantics between swap pages and shared file mappings, but at the
    same time I also have to admit to believing that swap _is_ special in some
    ways, so if we don't ever really unify them I won't be shedding any huge


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.022 / U:1.404 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site