From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bongani Hlope Subject: Re: updatedb Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:08:02 +0200 References: <367a23780707250830i20a04a60n690e8da5630d39a9@mail.gmail.com> <200707260839.51407.bhlope@mweb.co.za> <46A845BB.9080503@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <46A845BB.9080503@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707260908.02781.bhlope@mweb.co.za> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rene Herman Cc: Robert Deaton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck list , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thursday 26 July 2007 08:56:59 Rene Herman wrote: > On 07/26/2007 08:39 AM, Bongani Hlope wrote: > > On Thursday 26 July 2007 05:59:53 Rene Herman wrote: > >> So what's happening? If you sit down with a copy op "top" in one > >> terminal and updatedb in another, what does it show? > > > > Just tested that, there's a steady increase in the useage of buff > > Great. Now concentrate on the "swpd" column, as it's the only thing > relevant here. The fact that an updatedb run fills/replaces caches is > completely and utterly unsurprising and not something swap-prefetch helps > with. The only thing it does is bring back stuff from _swap_. > ;) I have 2Gb of RAM and I never ever touched swap on all my work loads. I was just showing the behavior of updatedb on my desktop. I have never even looked at the swap-prefetch patch (for obvious reasons). I think people should also look at their /proc/sys/vm/overcommit_ratio -- 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