Re: Sequential swapping, 2.0.3x vs. 2.1.131ac8

Chris Evans (chris@ferret.lmh.ox.ac.uk)
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:11:02 +0000 (GMT)


On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:

> The "cache" reporting is correct. Anyone who reads the wrong things
> into the kernel's cache size just needs to be reeducated: document it,
> yes, but don't fix the accounting.
>
> As for the lazy swap cleanup, there is an obvious fix which is a post-2.2
> item because of the subtle way it changes VM semantics: we need to
> avoid acounting the swap cache as a reference to the swap entry. This

Cool. I hope, however, the cluster pagein change can make in into 2.2. Not
only is swapping faster but one of my long gripes with Linux performance,
namely loading of big static binaries, is "fixed" [1]

Chris

[1] Well - about twice as fast on certain binaries :-)

P.S. I ran a sequential swapping test, boot with 16Mb real RAM. Allocate
100Mb and sweep through it 5 times.

2.0.34: 18min 15sec
2.1.131ac8: 4min 15sec

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