Re: Sequential swapping, 2.0.3x vs. 2.1.131ac8

Neil Conway (nconway.list@ukaea.org.uk)
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:57:00 +0000


Chris Evans wrote:
> Just one strange anomaly. After trying the same test with 64Mb and killing
> the program, about 8Mb of swap was tagged as still used. However there
> certainly wasn't 8Mb of stuff in total.
>
> Curious, I did swapoff -a. The 8Mb of swap disappeared (obviously) but my
> "cached" figure also dropped 8Mb. Are we leaking cached stuff into swap??

I've mentioned this a couple of times in posts. After talking to Rik
and Stephen, it seems that this it totally normal though I still don't
completely understand it, and is related in some way to swap-cache.

Now I think Stephen agrees that this at least needs to be documented and
reported differently by the system so that 'free' doesn't report swap
and cache being used when they aren't really (at least in the case of
the swap, reporting it used is bogus). It appears to be due to lazy
cleanup of swap cached pages.

The one thing that actually breaks with this effect (ignoring the
worried sysadmins!) is that vm_enough_memory() can't tell that the swap
isn't really used and thus denies otherwise acceptable requests for
memory. Once we fix this it's just strange, not broken.

(Stephen - did I get this straight?).

Neil

-
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/