Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:32:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:32:20 -0500 Received: from [62.59.70.137] ([62.59.70.137]:41988 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:32:07 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:43:02 +0100 (CET) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Mike Galbraith cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Alan Cox , Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.1-ac7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > Could you please try the attached patch on top of latest Rik's patch? > > Sure thing.. (few minutes later) no change. That's because your problem requires a change to the balancing between swap_out() and refill_inactive_scan() in refill_inactive()... The big problem here is that no matter which magic proportion between the two functions we use, it'll always be wrong for a large proportion of the people out there. This means we need to have a good way to auto-tune this thing. I'm thinking of letting swap_out() start out way less active than refill_inactive_scan() with extra calls to swapout being made from refill_inactive_scan when we think it's needed... (... I'm writing a patch right now ...) regards, Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/ - 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/