From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:11:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:10:56 -0500 Received: from adsl-209-182-168-213.value.net ([209.182.168.213]:24329 "EHLO draco.foogod.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:10:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:10:09 -0800 From: alex@foogod.com To: Rik van Riel Cc: alex@foogod.com, Alan Olsen , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Recommended swap for 2.4.x. Message-ID: <20010130101009.B13819@draco.foogod.com> In-Reply-To: <20010129152335.H11411@draco.foogod.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3us In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 09:48:33AM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > It has. We now leave dirty pages swapcached, which means that > for certain workloads Linux 2.4 eats up much more swap space > than Linux 2.2. Ah.. thanks for the clarification. Is this duplication "hard" or "soft"? i.e. under low-memory conditions, do these duplicated pages actually reduce the hard limit of VM available, or just imply that using that last bit of memory will entail greater paging overhead (because it has to do more cleanup)? Does this mean that having a swap partition less than or equal to RAM is now effectively pointless? -alex - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/