El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:03:19 +0200 (CEST), "Indan Zupancic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> Perhaps one of the reasons is that this is core kernel code. And that it
> isn't a new
> feature, but a performance improvement with doubtful trade-offs. The problem
> statement isn't clear either. It see
Chris Snook wrote:
> Al Boldi wrote:
> > IMHO, what everybody agrees on, is that swap-prefetch has a positive
> > effect in some cases, and nobody can prove an adverse effect (excluding
> > power consumption). The reason for this positive effect is also crystal
> > clear: It prefetches from swap o
Al Boldi wrote:
People wrote:
I believe the users who say their apps really do get paged back in
though, so suspect that's not the case.
Stopping the bush-circumference beating, I do not. -ck (and gentoo) have
this massive Calimero thing going among their users where people are
much less intere
On Sat, July 28, 2007 01:34, grundig wrote:
> El Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:06:14 -0700, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escribi�:
>
>> how do you know there will be other activity? You start the IO and that
>> basically blacks out the disk for 5 to 10 ms. If the "real" IO gets
>> submitted in tha
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 01:34 +0200, grundig wrote:
> El Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:06:14 -0700, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escribió:
>
> > how do you know there will be other activity? You start the IO and that
> > basically blacks out the disk for 5 to 10 ms. If the "real" IO gets
> > submit
El Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:06:14 -0700, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> how do you know there will be other activity? You start the IO and that
> basically blacks out the disk for 5 to 10 ms. If the "real" IO gets
> submitted in that time you add latency. You cannot predict that IO
>
On Sat, July 28, 2007 00:06, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 23:51 +0200, Indan Zupanci
>> > also, they take up seek time (5 to 10 msec), so if you were to read
>> > something else at the time you get additional latency.
>>
>> If there's other disk activity swap prefetch shouldn't d
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 23:51 +0200, Indan Zupanci
> > also, they take up seek time (5 to 10 msec), so if you were to read
> > something else at the time you get additional latency.
>
> If there's other disk activity swap prefetch shouldn't do much, so this isn't
> really true.
how do you know ther
On Fri, July 27, 2007 22:34, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, July 27, 2007 21:43, Al Boldi wrote:
>> IMHO, what everybody agrees on, is that swap-prefetch has a positive effect
>> in some cases, and nobody can prove an adverse effect (excluding power
>> consumption). The reason for this positive
> IMHO, what everybody agrees on, is that swap-prefetch has a positive effect
> in some cases, and nobody can prove an adverse effect (excluding power
> consumption). The reason for this positive effect is also crystal clear:
> It prefetches from swap on idle into free memory, ie: it doesn't
10 matches
Mail list logo
