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

[Marc Singer]

On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 07:35:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Marc Singer <elf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:57:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  IMHO, the VM on a desktop system really should be optimised to
> > > >  have the best interactive behaviour, meaning decent latency
> > > >  when switching applications.
> > > 
> > > I'm gonna stick my fingers in my ears and sing "la la la" until people tell
> > > me "I set swappiness to zero and it didn't do what I wanted it to do".
> > 
> > It does, but it's a bit too coarse of a solution.  It just means that
> > the page cache always loses.
> 
> That's what people have been asking for.  What are you suggesting should
> happen instead?

I'm thinking that the problem is that the page cache is greedier that
most people expect.  For example, if I could hold the page cache to be
under a specific size, then I could do some performance measurements.
E.g, compile kernel with a 768K page cache, 512K, 256K and 128K.  On a
machine with loads of RAM, where's the optimal page cache size?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/