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, 6 Jun 2001 10:17:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:17:05 -0400 Received: from stanis.onastick.net ([207.96.1.49]:6919 "EHLO stanis.onastick.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:16:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:16:51 -0400 From: Disconnect To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Break 2.4 VM in five easy steps Message-ID: <20010606101651.A852@sigkill.net> In-Reply-To: <3B1D5ADE.7FA50CD0@illusionary.com> <3B1D927E.1B2EBE76@uow.edu.au> <20010605231908.A10520@illusionary.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <20010605231908.A10520@illusionary.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 05 Jun 2001, Derek Glidden did have cause to say: > > The swapoff algorithms in 2.2 and 2.4 are basically identical. > > The problem *appears* worse in 2.4 because it uses lots > > more swap. > > I disagree with the terminology you're using. It *is* worse in 2.4, > period. If it only *appears* worse, then if I encounter a situation > where a 2.2 box has utilized as much swap as a 2.4 box, I should see the > same results. Yet this happens not to be the case. Ditto here - my box (1.2g tbird, 512M ram, 128M+128M swap, mixed scsi/ide) does the same on swapoff -- 2.2.16 can be 100 megs or more into swap, and it gets sluggish for a bit and then is fine. 2.4.[123] can be only 10 megs into swap and it basically hardlocks for about 5-10 minutes. --- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 [www.ebb.org/ungeek] GIT/CC/CM/AT d--(-)@ s+:-- a-->? C++++$ ULBS*++++$ P- L+++>+++++ E--- W+++ N+@ o+>$ K? w--->+++++ O- M V-- PS+() PE Y+@ PGP++() t 5--- X-- R tv+@ b++++>$ DI++++ D++(+++) G++ e* h(-)* r++ y++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------