From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:42:14 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: swapping and the value of /proc/sys/vm/swappiness Message-ID: <64810000.1094686934@flay> In-Reply-To: <1094682510.12371.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <5860000.1094664673@flay> <20040908215008.10a56e2b.diegocg@teleline.es> <36100000.1094677832@flay> <1094682510.12371.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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: Alan Cox Cc: Diego Calleja , Rik van Riel , raybry@sgi.com, marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com, kernel@kolivas.org, akpm@osdl.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org, piggin@cyberone.com.au List-ID: > On Mer, 2004-09-08 at 22:10, Martin J. Bligh wrote: >> I really don't see any point in pushing the self-tuning of the kernel out >> into userspace. What are you hoping to achieve? > > What if there is more than one right answer to "self-tune" policy. Also > what if you want an application to tweak the tuning in ways that are > different to general policy ? It's still overridable from userspace, I'd think. But having a sensible default in the kernel makes a crapload of sense to me. We have better faster access to data from there - if there are really things that aren't just parameters to the tuning algorithm it'd have to repeatedly poke values into hard overrides. Do-able, but not what we want by default, I'd think. 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