From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:50:08 +0200 From: Diego Calleja Subject: Re: swapping and the value of /proc/sys/vm/swappiness Message-Id: <20040908215008.10a56e2b.diegocg@teleline.es> In-Reply-To: References: <5860000.1094664673@flay> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: mbligh@aracnet.com, raybry@sgi.com, marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, kernel@kolivas.org, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, piggin@cyberone.com.au List-ID: El Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:04:31 -0400 (EDT) Rik van Riel escribio: > On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > > For HPC, maybe. For a fileserver, it might be far too little. That's the > > trouble ... it's all dependant on the workload. Personally, I'd prefer > > to get rid of manual tweakables (which are a pain in the ass in the field > > anyway), and try to have the kernel react to what the customer is doing. > > Agreed. Many of these things should be self-tunable pretty > easily, too... I know this has been discussed before, but could a userspace daemon which autotunes the tweakables do a better job wrt. to adapting the kernel behaviour depending on the workload? Just like these days we have irqbalance instead of a in-kernel "irq balancer". It's a alternative worth of look at? -- 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