From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:10:32 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: swapping and the value of /proc/sys/vm/swappiness Message-ID: <36100000.1094677832@flay> In-Reply-To: <20040908215008.10a56e2b.diegocg@teleline.es> References: <5860000.1094664673@flay> <20040908215008.10a56e2b.diegocg@teleline.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Diego Calleja , Rik van Riel Cc: 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: >> > 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? I really don't see any point in pushing the self-tuning of the kernel out into userspace. What are you hoping to achieve? M. -- 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