From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23] From: Mike Galbraith In-Reply-To: <200707271851.29061.dhazelton@enter.net> References: <9a8748490707231608h453eefffx68b9c391897aba70@mail.gmail.com> <200707271345.55187.dhazelton@enter.net> <1185574124.6342.31.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <200707271851.29061.dhazelton@enter.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:48:13 +0200 Message-Id: <1185608893.6394.62.camel@Homer.simpson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daniel Hazelton Cc: Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Frank Kingswood , Andi Kleen , Nick Piggin , Ray Lee , Jesper Juhl , ck list , Paul Jackson , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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. I personally don't care if swap-prefetch goes in or not. -Mike -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org