From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 19:50:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 19:50:20 -0400 Received: from RAVEL.CODA.CS.CMU.EDU ([128.2.222.215]:62850 "EHLO ravel.coda.cs.cmu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 15 Sep 2001 19:50:08 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 19:50:31 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9 Message-ID: <20010915195030.A28703@cs.cmu.edu> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i From: Jan Harkes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org What do you consider as good VM? Because pages aren't 'aged' until there is swap allocated for them, your kernel should actually work better if it has a lot of pages backed by swap. The only thing is, we don't really make the right decision about which pages to swap out, but that's just a detail. IMHO. A large number of cached/active pages == good. Jan On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 12:43:35AM +0200, Peter Magnusson wrote: > 2.4.7: good VM > 2.4.8: not good > 2.4.9: not good!!!++ > 2.4.10-pre4: quite ok VM, but put little more on the swap than 2.4.7 > 2.4.10-pre8: not good > 2.4.10-pre9: not good ... Linux didnt had used any swap at all, then i > unrared two very large files at the same time. And now 104 > Mbyte swap is used! :-( 2.4.7 didnt do like this. > Best is to use the swap as little as possible. > > My cfg: > > Real mem: 512684K (512 Mbyte) > Swap : 257032K > compiled with: gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Linux-Mandrake 8.0 2.96-0.48mdk)