From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 25 Dec 2002 03:33:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 25 Dec 2002 03:33:00 -0500 Received: from packet.digeo.com ([12.110.80.53]:929 "EHLO packet.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 25 Dec 2002 03:32:59 -0500 Message-ID: <3E096F21.DBD6BEF5@digeo.com> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 00:41:05 -0800 From: Andrew Morton X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.5.52 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua CC: Paolo Ciarrocchi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Poor performance with 2.5.52, load and process in D state References: <20021222113754.15064.qmail@linuxmail.org> <3E06F399.655E0005@digeo.com> <200212250824.gBP8Nus17429@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Dec 2002 08:41:06.0354 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D7A0120:01C2ABF1] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Denis Vlasenko wrote: > > ... > I wonder whether swappiness should be related to the speed > ratio between storage types? How exactly? It doesn't matter. Assuming the latency of the swap device is the same as the filesystem device it cancels out. We're simply trying to minimise the total amount of I/O. > Having to play with tunables is not an ideal way to go, > I hate to think that Andrew's (and others) work can go down > the drain at the very next technology jump. It's constant-access-time mass storage technology which will toss 20 years development down the gurgler. Top to bottom, everything is designed to support the locality=bandwidth characteristics of spinning disks.