[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
On Saturday 28 July 2007 03:48:13 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 18:51 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Now, once more, I'm going to ask: What is so terribly wrong with swap
> > prefetch? Why does it seem that everyone against it says "Its treating a
> > symptom, so it can't go in"?
> And once again, I personally have nothing against swap-prefetch, or
> something like it. I can see how it or something like it could be made
> to improve the lives of people who get up in the morning to find their
> apps sitting on disk due to memory pressure generated by over-night
> system maintenance operations.
> The author himself however, says his implementation can't help with
> updatedb (though people seem to be saying that it does), or anything
> else that leaves memory full. That IMHO, makes it of questionable value
> toward solving what people are saying they want swap-prefetch for in the
> first place.

Okay. I have to agree with the author that, in such a situation, it wouldn't
help. However there are, without a doubt, other situations where it would
help immensely. (memory hogs forcing everything to disk and quitting, one off
tasks that don't balloon the cache (kernel compiles, et al) - in those
situations swap prefetch would really shine.)


Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
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: 2007-07-28 17:39    [W:0.238 / U:1.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site