From: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>
To: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>
Cc: Lorenzo Allegrucci <lenstra@tiscalinet.it>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Subject: Re: new OOM heuristic failure (was: Re: VM: qsbench)
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 03:55:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200111020255.DAA30651@webserver.ithnet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200111020230.DAA30535@webserver.ithnet.com>
> Ok. I re-checked the code and found out this approach cannot stand.
> the list scan _is_ already exited early when priority is low:
Sorry for followup on my own mail, but there is another thing that
comes to my mind:
swap_out is currently in no way priority-dependant. But it could be
(the parameter is there). How about swapping more pages in tighter
memory situation? The basic idea is that if there is a rising need for
mem it cannot be wrong to do a bit more than under normal
circumstances. One could achieve this simply by:
int counter, nr_pages = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
to
int counter, nr_pages = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * DEF_PRIORITY /
priority;
in swap_out.
The idea behind is to reduce the overhead in finding out if swapping
is needed by simply swapping more everytime we already gone "the long
way to knowing".
Regards,
Stephan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-11-02 2:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200111012108.WAA28044@webserver.ithnet.com>
[not found] ` <3.0.6.32.20011101214957.01feaa70@pop.tiscalinet.it>
2001-11-01 21:59 ` new OOM heuristic failure (was: Re: VM: qsbench) Lorenzo Allegrucci
2001-11-01 23:35 ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2001-11-02 0:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-11-02 2:17 ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2001-11-02 2:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-11-02 2:30 ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2001-11-02 2:55 ` Stephan von Krawczynski [this message]
2001-11-02 2:37 Ed Tomlinson
2001-11-02 3:01 ` Stephan von Krawczynski
[not found] <Pine.LNX.3.96.1011031133645.448B-100000@gollum.norang.ca>
2001-10-31 19:46 ` Linus Torvalds
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-10-31 12:12 VM: qsbench Lorenzo Allegrucci
2001-10-31 15:00 ` new OOM heuristic failure (was: Re: VM: qsbench) Rik van Riel
2001-10-31 15:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-10-31 16:04 ` Rik van Riel
2001-10-31 17:42 ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2001-10-31 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-10-31 17:55 ` Lorenzo Allegrucci
2001-10-31 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-10-31 21:31 ` Lorenzo Allegrucci
2001-11-02 13:00 ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2001-11-02 17:36 ` Lorenzo Allegrucci
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200111020255.DAA30651@webserver.ithnet.com \
--to=skraw@ithnet.com \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=lenstra@tiscalinet.it \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox