From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:04:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:03:47 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:52524 "EHLO flinx.biederman.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 04:03:30 -0400 To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Derek Glidden , , Subject: Re: Break 2.4 VM in five easy steps In-Reply-To: From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 07 Jun 2001 01:59:44 -0600 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.5 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 Mike Galbraith writes: > On 7 Jun 2001, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > Does this improve the swapoff speed or just allow other programs to > > run at the same time? If it is still slow under that kind of load it > > would be interesting to know what is taking up all time. > > > > If it is no longer slow a patch should be made and sent to Linus. > > No, it only cures the freeze. The other appears to be the slow code > pointed out by Andrew Morton being tickled by dead swap pages. O.k. I think I'm ready to nominate the dead swap pages for the big 2.4.x VM bug award. So we are burning cpu cycles in sys_swapoff instead of being IO bound? Just wanting to understand this the cheap way :) Eric