Message-ID: <40912F15.4030300@nortelnetworks.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:36:37 -0400
From: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
       brettspamacct@fastclick.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ~500 megs cached yet 2.6.5 goes into swap hell
References: <409021D3.4060305@fastclick.com><20040428170106.122fd94e.akpm@osdl.org><409047E6.5000505@pobox.com><40905127.3000001@fastclick.com><20040428180038.73a38683.akpm@osdl.org><4090595D.6050709@pobox.com> <20040428184008.226bd52d.akpm@osdl.org> <44780000.1083255853@flay>
In-Reply-To: <44780000.1083255853@flay>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 942
Lines: 19

Martin J. Bligh wrote:

> The latency for interactive stuff is definitely more noticeable though, and
> thus arguably more important. Perhaps we should be tying the scheduler in
> more tightly with the VM - we've already decided there which apps are 
> "interactive" and thus need low latency ... shouldn't we be giving a boost
> to their RAM pages as well, and favour keeping those paged in over other
> pages (whether other apps, or cache) logically? It's all latency still ...

I like this idea.  Maybe make it more general though--tasks with high scheduler priority also get 
more of a memory priority boost.  This will factor in the static priority as well as the 
interactivity bonus.

Chris
-
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/