From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.ccr.net (ccr@alogconduit1ae.ccr.net [208.130.159.5]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA04562 for ; Fri, 27 Nov 1998 07:05:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [2.1.130-3] Page cache DEFINATELY too persistant... feature? References: <199811261236.MAA14785@dax.scot.redhat.com> <199811271602.QAA00642@dax.scot.redhat.com> From: ebiederm+eric@ccr.net (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 28 Nov 1998 01:31:00 -0600 In-Reply-To: "Stephen C. Tweedie"'s message of "Fri, 27 Nov 1998 16:02:51 GMT" Message-ID: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: >>>>> "ST" == Stephen C Tweedie writes: ST> Hi, ST> Looks like I have a handle on what's wrong with the 2.1.130 vm (in ST> particular, its tendency to cache too much at the expense of ST> swapping). I really should look and play with this but I have one question. Why does it make sense when we want memory, to write every page we can to swap before we free any memory? I can't see how the policy of staying on a particular method of freeing pages will hurt in the other cases where if we say we freed a page we actually did, but in the current swap-out case it worries me. Would a limit on a number of pages to try to write-to swap before we start trying to reclaim pages be reasonable? Eric -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org