Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:21:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:21:27 -0500 Received: from p108.usnyc3.stsn.com ([199.106.218.108]:41994 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:21:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:22:44 -0500 (EST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Adam Sampson cc: Subject: Re: VM balancing problems under 2.4.2-ac1 In-Reply-To: <87vgq1p3um.fsf@cartman.azz.net> 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 23 Feb 2001, Adam Sampson wrote: > The VM balancing updates in the recent ac kernels seem to have caused > some interesting performance problems on my desktop machine. I've got > 160Mb of RAM, and 2.4.2-ac1 appears to be using excessively large > amounts of it for buffers and cache while pushing stuff out to > swap. This means that Mozilla, for instance, runs significantly worse > than under 2.4.0, since bits of it are being swapped in and out. This is a known problem which I'll fix as soon as I have a solution. The problem is that we still have no good way to balance how much memory we take from the cache and how much memory we take from processes. This means that for some workloads we'll be evicting too much cache while for other workloads we'll be evicting too much process pages... If anybody as a good idea to make this code auto-balancing, please let me know. 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/