lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: No swap can be dangerous (was Re: swap on RAID (was Re: swp - Re: ext3 journal on software raid))
Date
On Thursday 06 January 2005 17:46, Mike Hardy wrote:
>
> You are correct that I was getting at the zero swap argument - and I
> agree that it is vastly different from simply not expecting it. It is
> important to know that there is no inherent need for swap in the kernel
> though - it is simply used as more "memory" (albeit slower, and with
> some optimizations to work better with real memory) and if you don't
> need it, you don't need it.
>

If I recollect a recent thread on LKML correctly, your 'no inherent need for
swap' might be wrong.

I think the gist was this: the kernel can sometimes needs to move bits of
memory in order to free up dma-able ram, or lowmem. If I recall correctly,
the kernel can only do this move via swap, even if there is stacks of free
(non-dmaable or highmem) memory.

I distinctly remember the moral of the thread being "Always mount some swap,
if you can"

This might have changed though, or I might have got it completely wrong. -
I've cc'ed LKML incase somebody more knowledgeable can comment...

Andrew Walrond
-
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 14:09    [W:0.055 / U:1.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site