On 07/29/2007 03:12 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
quoted text >> What are the tradeoffs here? What wants small chunks? Also, as far as
>> I'm aware Linux does not do things like up the granularity when it
>> notices it's swapping in heavily? That sounds sort of promising...
>
> Small chunks means you get better efficiency of memory use - large chunks
> mean you may well page in a lot more than you needed to each time (and
> cause more paging in turn). Your disk would prefer you fed it big linear
> I/O's - 512KB would probably be my first guess at tuning a large box
> under load for paging chunk size.
That probably kills my momentary hope that I was looking at yet another good
use of large soft-pages seeing as how 512K would be going overboard a bit
right? :-/
quoted text > More radically if anyone wants to do real researchy type work - how about
> log structured swap with a cleaner ?
Right over my head. Why does log-structure help anything?
Rene.
-
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Messages in current thread:
clam , Andy Whitcroft , (Tue Jul 10, 5:37 am)
Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm me ... , Rene Herman , (Sun Jul 29, 7:07 am)