From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S938274AbXG1Hsb@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S938274AbXG1Hsb (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:48:31 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1763611AbXG1HsW
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:48:22 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:41705 "HELO mail.gmx.net"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id S1762917AbXG1HsV (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:48:21 -0400
X-Authenticated: #14349625
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19b7JdWCa1brGLWuBIY9j1PNbyLSB9OkrEOrXNyeu
	HkCBiSn0oS6PfE
Subject: Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge
	plans for 2.6.23]
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Frank Kingswood <frank@kingswood-consulting.co.uk>,
       Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>,
       Ray Lee <ray-lk@madrabbit.org>, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>,
       ck list <ck@vds.kolivas.org>, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <200707271851.29061.dhazelton@enter.net>
References: <9a8748490707231608h453eefffx68b9c391897aba70@mail.gmail.com>
	 <200707271345.55187.dhazelton@enter.net>
	 <1185574124.6342.31.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
	 <200707271851.29061.dhazelton@enter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 09:48:13 +0200
Message-Id: <1185608893.6394.62.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 18:51 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:

> Now, once more, I'm going to ask: What is so terribly wrong with swap 
> prefetch? Why does it seem that everyone against it says "Its treating a 
> symptom, so it can't go in"?

And once again, I personally have nothing against swap-prefetch, or
something like it. I can see how it or something like it could be made
to improve the lives of people who get up in the morning to find their
apps sitting on disk due to memory pressure generated by over-night
system maintenance operations.

The author himself however, says his implementation can't help with
updatedb (though people seem to be saying that it does), or anything
else that leaves memory full.  That IMHO, makes it of questionable value
toward solving what people are saying they want swap-prefetch for in the
first place.

I personally don't care if swap-prefetch goes in or not.

	-Mike