lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Autotune swappiness01
Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> 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 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans