From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <46A72EC9.4030706@yahoo.com.au> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:06:49 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [ck] Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 References: <46A57068.3070701@yahoo.com.au> <2c0942db0707240915h56e007e3l9110e24a065f2e73@mail.gmail.com> <46A6CC56.6040307@yahoo.com.au> <46A6D7D2.4050708@gmail.com> <46A6DFFD.9030202@gmail.com> <30701.1185347660@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <46A7074B.50608@gmail.com> <20070725082822.GA13098@elte.hu> <46A70D37.3060005@gmail.com> <5c77e14b0707250353r48458316x5e6adde6dbce1fbd@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5c77e14b0707250353r48458316x5e6adde6dbce1fbd@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Jos Poortvliet Cc: Rene Herman , Ingo Molnar , david@lang.hm, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Ray Lee , Jesper Juhl , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck list , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Jackson , Andrew Morton List-ID: Jos Poortvliet wrote: > Nick > has been talking about 'fixing the updatedb thing' for years now, no patch > yet. Wrong Nick, I think. First I heard about the updatedb problem was a few months ago with people saying updatedb was causing their system to swap (that is, swap prefetching helped after updatedb). I haven't been able to even try to fix it because I can't reproduce it (I'm sitting on a machine with 256MB RAM), and nobody has wanted to help me. > Besides, he won't fix OO.o nor all other userspace stuff - so > actually, > he does NOT even promise an alternative. Not that I think fixing updatedb > would be cool, btw - it sure would, but it's no reason not to include swap > prefetch - it's mostly unrelated. > > I think everyone with >1 gb ram should stop saying 'I don't need it' > because > that's obvious for that hardware. Just like ppl having a dual- or quadcore > shouldn't even talk about scheduler interactivity stuff... Actually there are people with >1GB of ram who are saying it helps. Why do you want to shut people out of the discussion? > Desktop users want it, tests show it works, there is no alternative and the > maybe-promised-one won't even fix all cornercases. It's small, mostly > selfcontained. There is a maintainer. It's been stable for a long time. > It's > been in MM for a long time. > > Yet it doesn't make it. Andrew says 'some ppl have objections' (he means > Nick) and he doesn't see an advantage in it (at least 4 gig ram, right, > Andrew?). > > Do I miss things? You could try constructively contributing? > Apparently, it didn't get in yet - and I find it hard to believe Andrew > holds swapprefetch for reasons like the above. So it must be something > else. > > > Nick is saying tests have already proven swap prefetch to be helpfull, > that's not the problem. He calls the requirements to get in 'fuzzy'. OK. The test I have seen is the one that forces a huge amount of memory to swap out, waits, then touches it. That speeds up, and that's fine. That's a good sanity test to ensure it is working. Beyond that there are other considerations to getting something merged. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. -- 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