From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 22:24:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Mike Galbraith 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: Rik van Riel , 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: > > On Fri, 18 May 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote: > > > > > Rik: Would you take patches for such a tradeoff sysctl? > > > > "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. I don't know if this'll make sense, but I think this has to be a ~fuzzy suggestion to the kernel. There are so many variables that you can't predict what the kernel will run into. For example, with my favorite test, sometimes tasks do something nasty, like all deciding to do the same things at once and thereby jerking a _knot_ in the vm's tail. -Mike -- 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/