Re: More info: 2.1.108 page cache performance on low memory
From: Rik van Riel <hidden>
Date: 1998-07-23 21:33:04
On 23 Jul 1998, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
One wrong way of fixing it is to limit page cache size, IMNSHO. I tried the other way, to age page cache harder, and it looks like it works very well. Patch is simple, so simple that I can't understand nobody suggested (something like) it yet.
These solutions are somewhat the same, but your one may take a little less computational power and has a tradeoff in the fact that it is very inflexible.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- filemap.c.virgin Tue Jul 21 18:41:30 1998 +++ filemap.c Thu Jul 23 12:14:43 1998 + age_page(page); + age_page(page); age_page(page);If I put only two age_page()s, there's still too much swapping for my taste. With three age_page()s, read performance is as expected, and still we manage memory more efficiently than without page aging.
This only proves that three age_page()s are a good number for _your_ computer and your workload.
Comments?
As Stephen put it so nicely when I (in a bad mood) proposed another artificial limit: " O no, another arbitrary limit in the kernel! " And another one of Stephen's wisdoms (heavily paraphrased!): " Good solutions are dynamic and/or self-tuning " [Sorry Stephen, this was VERY heavily paraphrased :)] Rik. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl | | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org