From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:18:47 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: Might refill_inactive_zone () be too aggressive? Message-ID: <20040417061847.GC743@holomorphy.com> References: <20040417060920.GC29393@flea> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040417060920.GC29393@flea> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Marc Singer Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 11:09:20PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote: > 5) Removing the reclaim_mapped=1 line improves system response > dramatically...just as I'd expect. > So, is this something to worry about? Should it be a tunable feature? > Should this be something addressed in the platform specific VM code? A very interesting point there. The tendency to set reclaim_mapped = 1 is controlled by /proc/sys/vm/swappiness; setting that to 0 may improve your performance or behave closer to how the case you cited where vmscan.c never sets reclaim_mapped = 1 improved performance. The default value is 60, which begins unmapping mapped memory about when 40% of memory is mapped by userspace. -- wli -- 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: aart@kvack.org