Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 25 Jul 2004 17:48:49 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |