From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 15:59:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 15:59:09 -0400 Received: from as1-5-2.tbg.s.bonet.se ([217.215.34.209]:41638 "EHLO flashdance.cx") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 15:58:56 -0400 Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 21:59:59 +0200 (CEST) From: Peter Magnusson X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9 Message-ID: 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 Jan Harkes wrote: > What do you consider as good VM? When programs that isnt used are swapped out, or parts of them like it worked in < 2.4.7. > Because pages aren't 'aged' until there is swap allocated for them, your > kernel should actually work better if it has a lot of pages backed by > swap. The only thing is, we don't really make the right decision about It doesnt. It just gets slower. If it really become faster i would not have written my orginal posting. > which pages to swap out, but that's just a detail. > > IMHO. A large number of cached/active pages == good. IMHO: Use the swap as little as possible == good. Do you think i have 512 Mbyte of RAM just because i want the kernel to swap out lotsa stuff? No, because it shouldnt have the need for swapping out stuff.