lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [ck] Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
    Jos Poortvliet wrote:

    > Nick
    > has been talking about 'fixing the updatedb thing' for years now, no patch
    > yet.

    Wrong Nick, I think.

    First I heard about the updatedb problem was a few months ago with people
    saying updatedb was causing their system to swap (that is, swap prefetching
    helped after updatedb). I haven't been able to even try to fix it because I
    can't reproduce it (I'm sitting on a machine with 256MB RAM), and nobody
    has wanted to help me.


    > Besides, he won't fix OO.o nor all other userspace stuff - so
    > actually,
    > he does NOT even promise an alternative. Not that I think fixing updatedb
    > would be cool, btw - it sure would, but it's no reason not to include swap
    > prefetch - it's mostly unrelated.
    >
    > I think everyone with >1 gb ram should stop saying 'I don't need it'
    > because
    > that's obvious for that hardware. Just like ppl having a dual- or quadcore
    > shouldn't even talk about scheduler interactivity stuff...

    Actually there are people with >1GB of ram who are saying it helps. Why do
    you want to shut people out of the discussion?


    > Desktop users want it, tests show it works, there is no alternative and the
    > maybe-promised-one won't even fix all cornercases. It's small, mostly
    > selfcontained. There is a maintainer. It's been stable for a long time.
    > It's
    > been in MM for a long time.
    >
    > Yet it doesn't make it. Andrew says 'some ppl have objections' (he means
    > Nick) and he doesn't see an advantage in it (at least 4 gig ram, right,
    > Andrew?).
    >
    > Do I miss things?

    You could try constructively contributing?


    > Apparently, it didn't get in yet - and I find it hard to believe Andrew
    > holds swapprefetch for reasons like the above. So it must be something
    > else.
    >
    >
    > Nick is saying tests have already proven swap prefetch to be helpfull,
    > that's not the problem. He calls the requirements to get in 'fuzzy'. OK.

    The test I have seen is the one that forces a huge amount of memory to
    swap out, waits, then touches it. That speeds up, and that's fine. That's
    a good sanity test to ensure it is working. Beyond that there are other
    considerations to getting something merged.

    --
    SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
    -
    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: 2007-07-25 13:09    [W:4.093 / U:0.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site