Re: Sequential swapping, 2.0.3x vs. 2.1.131ac8

Neil Conway (nconway.list@ukaea.org.uk)
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 14:14:33 +0000


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.

Absolutely. Once it's documented, all is well.

> 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
> is more tricky than it sounds, because it means we need to start
> accounting readonly swap-cached pages mapped in VM as still having a
> swap reference on disk (currently, such pages rely on the swap cache's
> reference to the swap entry to ensure that the on-disk swap page is not
> reused). That changes too many bits of VM too subtly to be done during
> 2.2 codefreeze. Any other solution is just the wrong solution.

Aha. So I guess vm_enough_memory() will just have to stay broken in
this respect until 2.2/3...

On a related point, I still have trouble understanding why it's a good
idea to do the following (my interpretation of the behaviour I've been
seeing on 131ac8):

1* application requests 8MB
2* OS swaps out 16MB and caches 8MB of that while handing 8MB to the
requesting application.

Have to say I can't figure that out. By all means educate me or point
me to a web site that explains it...

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/