Re: ~500 megs cached yet 2.6.5 goes into swap hell

Martin J. Bligh
2004-04-29T16:57:17Z

>> The latency for interactive stuff is definitely more noticeable though, and
>> thus arguably more important. Perhaps we should be tying the scheduler in
>> more tightly with the VM - we've already decided there which apps are
>> "interactive" and thus need low latency ... shouldn't we be giving a boost
>> to their RAM pages as well, and favour keeping those paged in over other
>> pages (whether other apps, or cache) logically? It's all latency still ...
>
> I like this idea. Maybe make it more general though--tasks with high scheduler priority also get more of a memory priority boost. This will factor in the static priority as well as the interactivity bonus.

Yeah, see also my other mail in that thread - if we moved to file-object (address_space) and task anon (mm) based tracking, it should be much easier.
Also fits in nicely with Hugh's anon_mm code.

M.