From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 21:03:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 21:03:32 -0500 Received: from inje.iskon.hr ([213.191.128.16]:27145 "EHLO inje.iskon.hr") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 21:03:20 -0500 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Subtle MM bug In-Reply-To: Reply-To: zlatko@iskon.hr X-Face: s71Vs\G4I3mB$X2=P4h[aszUL\%"`1!YRYl[JGlC57kU-`kxADX}T/Bq)Q9.$fGh7lFNb.s i&L3xVb:q_Pr}>Eo(@kU,c:3:64cR]m@27>1tGl1):#(bs*Ip0c}N{:JGcgOXd9H'Nwm:}jLr\FZtZ pri/C@\,4lW<|jrq^<):Nk%Hp@G&F"r+n1@BoH From: Zlatko Calusic Date: 09 Jan 2001 00:41:14 +0100 In-Reply-To: Linus Torvalds's message of "Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:58:15 -0800 (PST)" Message-ID: <87n1d1mx2d.fsf@atlas.iskon.hr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.2 (Peisino,Ak(B) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Wayne Whitney wrote: > > > > > Well, here is a workload that performs worse on 2.4.0 than on 2.2.19pre, > > > > > The typical machine is a dual Intel box with 512MB RAM and 512MB swap. > > > > How does 2.4 perform when you add an extra GB of swap ? > > > > 2.4 keeps dirty pages in the swap cache, so you will need > > more swap to run the same programs... > > > > Linus: is this something we want to keep or should we give > > the user the option to run in a mode where swap space is > > freed when we swap in something non-shared ? > > I'd prefer just documenting it and keeping it. I'd hate to have two fairly > different modes of behaviour. It's always been the suggested "twice the > amount of RAM", although there's historically been the "Linux doesn't > really need that much" that we just killed with 2.4.x. > > If you have 512MB or RAM, you can probably afford another 40GB or so of > harddisk. They are disgustingly cheap these days. > Yes, but a lot more data on the swap also means degraded performance, because the disk head has to seek around in the much bigger area. Are you sure this is all OK? -- Zlatko - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/