Re: bad caching behavior in 2.6.12rc1

2005-03-25 Thread Bill Nottingham
Andrew Morton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > > Test box is a 1.5GB laptop. > > > > In typical use, I would open a mailbox A, and then switch > > to mailbox B. Immediately switching back to mailbox A, I > > would find out it was no longer cached. (Using maildirs, > > FWIW.) > > > > Looking at /proc/

Re: bad caching behavior in 2.6.12rc1

2005-03-24 Thread Andrew Morton
Bill Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When I upgraded from 2.6.11 to 2.6.12rc1, the VM started > behaving really badly with respect to caching. > > Test box is a 1.5GB laptop. > > In typical use, I would open a mailbox A, and then switch > to mailbox B. Immediately switching back to mail

bad caching behavior in 2.6.12rc1

2005-03-24 Thread Bill Nottingham
When I upgraded from 2.6.11 to 2.6.12rc1, the VM started behaving really badly with respect to caching. Test box is a 1.5GB laptop. In typical use, I would open a mailbox A, and then switch to mailbox B. Immediately switching back to mailbox A, I would find out it was no longer cached. (Using mai