From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:11:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:11:15 -0500 Received: from magla.iskon.hr ([213.191.128.32]:5124 "EHLO magla.iskon.hr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:11:09 -0500 To: Simon Kirby Cc: Linus Torvalds , "Eric W. Biederman" , Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Subtle MM bug In-Reply-To: <20010109145352.A23691@stormix.com> Reply-To: zlatko@iskon.hr X-Face: s71Vs\G4I3mB$X2=P4h[aszUL\%"`1!YRYl[JGlC57kU-`kxADX}T/Bq)Q9.$fGh7lFNb.s i&L3xVb:q_Pr}>Eo(@kU,c:3:64cR]m@27>1tGl1):#(bs*Ip0c}N{:JGcgOXd9H'Nwm:}jLr\FZtZ pri/C@\,4lW<|jrq^<):Nk%Hp@G&F"r+n1@BoH From: Zlatko Calusic Date: 09 Jan 2001 21:10:54 +0100 In-Reply-To: Simon Kirby's message of "Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:53:52 -0500" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.2 (Notus) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Simon Kirby writes: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:47:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > And this _is_ a downside, there's no question about it. There's the worry > > about the potential loss of locality, but there's also the fact that you > > effectively need a bigger swap partition with 2.4.x - never mind that > > large portions of the allocations may never be used. You still need the > > disk space for good VM behaviour. > > > > There are always trade-offs, I think the 2.4.x tradeoff is a good one. > > Hmm, perhaps you could clarify... > > For boxes that rarely ever use swap with 2.2, will they now need more > swap space on 2.4 to perform well, or just boxes which don't have enough > RAM to handle everything nicely? > Just boxes that were already short on memory (swapped a lot) will need more swap, empirically up to 4 times as much. If you already had enough memory than things will stay almost the same for you. But anyway, after some testing I've done recently I would now not recommend anybody to have less than 2 x RAM size swap partition. > I've always been tending to make swap partitions smaller lately, as it > helps in the case where we have to wait for a runaway process to eat up > all of the swap space before it gets killed. Making the swap size > smaller speeds up the time it takes for this to happen, albeit something > which isn't supposed to happen anyway. > Well, if you continue with that practice now you will be even more successful in killing such processes, I would say. :) -- Zlatko - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/