On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > Could you please try the attached patch on top of latest Rik's patch?
>
> Sure thing.. (few minutes later) no change.
That's because your problem requires a change to the
balancing between swap_out() and refill_inactive_scan()
in refill_inactive()...
The big problem here is that no matter which magic
proportion between the two functions we use, it'll always
be wrong for a large proportion of the people out there.
This means we need to have a good way to auto-tune this
thing. I'm thinking of letting swap_out() start out way
less active than refill_inactive_scan() with extra calls
to swapout being made from refill_inactive_scan when we
think it's needed...
(... I'm writing a patch right now ...)
regards,
Rik
--
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.br/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
