From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from burns.conectiva (burns.conectiva [10.0.0.4]) by perninha.conectiva.com.br (Postfix) with SMTP id DC4FB16B8F for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 17:12:01 -0300 (EST) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 17:12:01 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.4-ac10 In-Reply-To: <20010518205843.T806@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ingo Oeser Cc: Mike Galbraith , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 03:23:03PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > "such a tradeoff" ? > > > > While this sounds reasonable, I have to point out that > > up to now nobody has described exactly WHAT tradeoff > > they'd like to make tunable and why... > > Amount of pages reclaimed from swapout_mm() versus amount of > pages reclaimed from caches. > > A value that says: "use XX% of my main memory for RSS of > processes, even if I run heavy disk loadf now" would be nice. > > For general purpose machines, where I run several services but > also play games, this would allow both to survive. > > The external services would go slower. Who cares, if some CVS > updates or NFS services go slower, if I can play my favorite game > at full speed? ;-) Remember that the executable and data of that game reside in the filesystem cache. This "double counting" makes it quite a bit harder to actually implement what seems like a simple tradeoff. regards, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/