[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Autotune swappiness01
    Con Kolivas <> wrote:
    > >> It has the effect
    > >> of being fairly aggressive at avoiding loss of applications to swap under
    > >> conditions of heavy or sustained file stress while allowing applications to
    > >> swap out under what would be considered "application" memory stresses on a
    > >> desktop.
    > >
    > > But decreasing /proc/sys/vm/swappiness does that too?
    > Low memory boxes and ones that are heavily laden with applications find that
    > ends up making things slow down trying to keep all applications in physical
    > ram.

    Doesn't that mean that swappiness was decreased by too much?

    > >
    > >> It has no measurable effect on any known benchmarks.
    > >
    > > So how are we to evaluate the desirability of the patch???
    > Get desktop users to report back their experiences which is what I have
    > currently. Sorry we're in the realm of subjectivity again.

    Seriously, we've seen placebo effects before...

    > > Shouldn't mapped_bias be local to refill_inactive_zone()?
    > That is so a followup patch can use it elsewhere...

    erk. I guess it's OK because the thing is derived from global state which
    changes slowly over time.

    > > Why is `swappiness' getting squared? AFAICT this will simply make the
    > > swappiness control behave nonlinearly, which seems undesirable?
    > To parallel the nonlinear nature of the mapped bias effect.

    That doesn't really answer my question? What goes wrong if swappiness is
    not squared?
    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 14:04    [W:0.020 / U:4.896 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site