From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264882AbUGIO0e (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2004 10:26:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264798AbUGIO02 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2004 10:26:28 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.106]:50403 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264770AbUGIOXf (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jul 2004 10:23:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2004 07:23:29 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Con Kolivas , Andrew Morton cc: ck@vds.kolivas.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Autotune swappiness Message-ID: <13490000.1089383007@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <40EDE956.80705@kolivas.org> References: <40EC13C5.2000101@kolivas.org> <40EC1930.7010805@comcast.net> <40EC1B0A.8090802@kolivas.org> <20040707213822.2682790b.akpm@osdl.org> <20040708001027.7fed0bc4.akpm@osdl.org> <20040708010842.2064a706.akpm@osdl.org> <40ED7534.4010409@kolivas.org> <20040708094406.2b0293ea.akpm@osdl.org> <40EDE956.80705@kolivas.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> Here is another try at providing feedback to tune the vm_swappiness. >> >> >> I spent some time yesterday trying to demonstrate performance improvements >> from those two patches. Using >> >> make -j4 vmlinux with mem=64m >> >> and >> >> qsbench -p 4 -m 96 with mem=256m >> >> and was not able to do so, which is what I expected. >> >> We do need more quantitative testing on this work. > > Sure thing. > > I need to point out a few things: > The point of this patch was to improve the swap behaviour on desktop like loads. > The fact that it improved the "when swap is thrashing" scenario (in my testing) was an unintentional bonus. > I dont think your load of j4 will induce quite the same swap thrash as what I was testing. I actually suspect the faster cpu & more jobs over fixed memory shows it more. > I need someone with more varied hardware to test it for me. I can recreate equivalent results on my current machine which has similar hardware, but I think results showing improvement on different machines and different loads is what you're looking for... and since I'm currently quite low on hardware I can only offer results from this one (and my wife is hating it being offline o_0) > > Anyone willing to offer to do some tests? What kind of mem pressure are you looking for? kernel compile is easy to run, and straight "-j" should kill a small system fairly well ... you want it just into swap, or thrashing the crap out of it? M.