[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [2.4] heavy-load under swap space shortage
    On Wed, 26 May 2004, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

    > Andrea, Hugh, Jun'ichi,
    > I think we can merge this patch.

    I guess so. I'm unenthusiastic since I've never worked out whether
    it's _right_, or just an ad hoc hack that happens to work around
    more fundamental issues, quite successfully in some workloads.

    Andrea seems to have devised it to reduce pagemap_lru_lock
    contention on bigiron, yet here it's solving a different problem.
    Which may be a sign that it's a great patch, or a sign that we
    (I!) don't understand what goes on here well enough.

    Please don't count me as against it: I just don't know.

    (My involvement was earlier when Jun'ichi reported page_table_lock
    contention there. We were working together on an entirely different
    kind of patch addressing that issue, when Andrea suggested he try this
    vm_anon_lru patch. As I understand it, that solved Jun'ichi's particular
    problem much more satisfactorily than our own dabblings; but I rather
    dropped out at that point.)

    > Its very safe - default behaviour unchanged.

    Yes, but please update the comments to reflect that, they imply
    vm_anon_lru 0 by default, presumably how it was in Andrea's tree.

    The tunability, of course, does unfairly make it look more like a
    hack than it is; but if we're uncertain, yes, a tunable hack is
    much better than a wrong decision now.


    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 14:03    [W:0.019 / U:5.432 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site