Re: vmscan.c heuristic adjustment for smaller systems

[Marc Singer <elf@buici.com>]

On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 06:06:16PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 02:33:33PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> This doesn't match your first response. Anyway, this one is gets
> >> scrapped. I guess if swappiness solves it, then so much the better.
> 
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 02:52:57PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> > Huh?  Where do you see a discrepency?  I don't think I claimed that
> > the test program performance changed.  The noticeable difference is in
> > interactivity once the page cache fills.  IMHO, 30 seconds to do a
> > file listing on /proc is extreme.
> 
> Oh, sorry, it was unclear to me that the test changed anything but
> swappiness (i.e. I couldn't tell they included the patch etc.)

Ah, OK.  Now I understand your confusion.  Based on the numbers, it is
clear that your last patch does exactly the same thing as setting
swappiness.  It is true that I didn't apply it.  Still, I think that
your change is worth consideration since setting swappiness to zero is
such a blunt solution.  I apologize for not making this clear before.