Re: 2.6.0-test9 - poor swap performance on low end machines

[Rik van Riel]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> Limited sets of configurations may have left holes in the testing.
> Upper zones much larger than lower zones basically want the things
> to be unequal. It probably wants the replacement load spread
> proportionally in general or some such nonsense.

Yeah. In some configurations 2.4-rmap takes care of this
automagically since part of the replacement isn't as
pressure driven as in 2.4 mainline and 2.6, ie. some of
the aging is done independantly of allocation pressure.

Still, inter-zone balancing is HARD to get right. I'm
currently trying to absorb all of the 2.6 VM balancing
into my mind (*sound effects of brain turning to slush*)
to find any possible imbalances.

Some of the test results I have seen make me very
suspicious...

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan

-
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/