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 10:42:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:41:50 -0400 Received: from step.polymtl.ca ([132.207.4.32]:661 "EHLO step.polymtl.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:41:42 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:41:25 -0400 From: Marc Heckmann To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Jeffrey W. Baker" , Derek Glidden , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Break 2.4 VM in five easy steps Message-ID: <20010606104125.A20457@step.polymtl.ca> In-Reply-To: <3B1D5ADE.7FA50CD0@illusionary.com> <3B1D927E.1B2EBE76@uow.edu.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3B1D927E.1B2EBE76@uow.edu.au>; from andrewm@uow.edu.au on Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 12:16:30PM +1000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 12:16:30PM +1000, Andrew Morton wrote: > "Jeffrey W. Baker" wrote: > > > > Because the 2.4 VM is so broken, and > > because my machines are frequently deeply swapped, > > 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. exactly, I've seen this on a 2.2.16 box that went deep into swap. Although it didn't lock up, kswapd was using most of the CPU time during a swapoff. -mh