From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk (renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.13.3]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA13666 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 16:38:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 18:32:45 +0100 Message-Id: <199807141732.SAA07242@dax.dcs.ed.ac.uk> From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: More info: 2.1.108 page cache performance on low memory In-Reply-To: <87lnpxy582.fsf@atlas.CARNet.hr> References: <199807131653.RAA06838@dax.dcs.ed.ac.uk> <87lnpxy582.fsf@atlas.CARNet.hr> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Zlatko.Calusic@CARNet.hr Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , "Stephen C. Tweedie" , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, On 13 Jul 1998 20:29:33 +0200, Zlatko Calusic said: > I agree that ageing of the page cache has a bad impact on the > performance. > Just to mention, I have 64MB of physical memory, and my machine is > definitely not memory starved, but it also suffers from some of the > recent VM changes. Yep. Has anybody else got observations about what sort of configurations are helped or hindered by the current 2.1 changes? > That (removing cache limits) is one of my favorite changes. > Free memory == unused memory == bad policy! > There is no reason why any of the caches would not utilize all of the > free memory at any given moment. The existing limits don't affect the ability of the cache to grow; they just give a target bound for the cache when we start trying to get pages back for something else. > If anybody want to see, I can provide benchmark results, but I'm not > prepared to compile another kernel image if nobody's interested. :) Well, I've been compiling kernels all day for this. :) Any information you can give will help, but for now it does look as if backing out the cache ageing is a necessary first step. --Stephen -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org