On Mon 17-12-12 12:54:15, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 05:37:35PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 14-12-12 19:18:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > On Fri 14-12-12 10:43:55, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > >
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 05:37:35PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 14-12-12 19:18:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Fri 14-12-12 10:43:55, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Fri 14-12-12 19:18:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 14-12-12 10:43:55, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >
> > > >I can answer the later. Because memsw comes with its price and
> > >
On Fri 14-12-12 19:18:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 14-12-12 10:43:55, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
I can answer the later. Because memsw comes with its price and
swappiness is much
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 05:37:35PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 14-12-12 19:18:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 14-12-12 10:43:55, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
I can answer the
On Mon 17-12-12 12:54:15, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 05:37:35PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 14-12-12 19:18:51, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 14-12-12 10:43:55, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 12/14/2012
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 14-12-12 10:43:55, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > >I can answer the later. Because memsw comes with its price and
> > >swappiness is much cheaper. On the other hand it makes sense
On 12/14/2012 10:43 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
>> I can answer the later. Because memsw comes with its price and
>> swappiness is much cheaper. On the other hand it makes sense that
>> swappiness==0 doesn't swap at all. Or do you think we should get
On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 13-12-12 23:50:30, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:25:43PM +, Satoru Moriya wrote:
>>>
>>> I introduced swappiness check here with fe35004f because, in some
>>> cases, we prefer OOM to swap out pages to detect problems
On Fri 14-12-12 10:43:55, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> >I can answer the later. Because memsw comes with its price and
> >swappiness is much cheaper. On the other hand it makes sense that
> >swappiness==0 doesn't swap at all. Or do you think we should get
On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
I can answer the later. Because memsw comes with its price and
swappiness is much cheaper. On the other hand it makes sense that
swappiness==0 doesn't swap at all. Or do you think we should get back to
_almost_ doesn't swap at all?
swappiness==0
On Thu 13-12-12 23:50:30, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:25:43PM +, Satoru Moriya wrote:
> >
> > On 12/13/2012 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:> On Thu 13-12-12 16:29:59,
> > Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >> On Thu 13-12-12 10:34:20, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012
On Thu 13-12-12 23:50:30, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:25:43PM +, Satoru Moriya wrote:
On 12/13/2012 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 13-12-12 16:29:59,
Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 13-12-12 10:34:20, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM
On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
I can answer the later. Because memsw comes with its price and
swappiness is much cheaper. On the other hand it makes sense that
swappiness==0 doesn't swap at all. Or do you think we should get back to
_almost_ doesn't swap at all?
swappiness==0
On Fri 14-12-12 10:43:55, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
I can answer the later. Because memsw comes with its price and
swappiness is much cheaper. On the other hand it makes sense that
swappiness==0 doesn't swap at all. Or do you think we should get back to
On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 13-12-12 23:50:30, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:25:43PM +, Satoru Moriya wrote:
I introduced swappiness check here with fe35004f because, in some
cases, we prefer OOM to swap out pages to detect problems as soon as
On 12/14/2012 10:43 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
I can answer the later. Because memsw comes with its price and
swappiness is much cheaper. On the other hand it makes sense that
swappiness==0 doesn't swap at all. Or do you think we should get back
to
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:13:45PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 14-12-12 10:43:55, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 12/14/2012 03:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
I can answer the later. Because memsw comes with its price and
swappiness is much cheaper. On the other hand it makes sense that
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:25:43PM +, Satoru Moriya wrote:
>
> On 12/13/2012 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:> On Thu 13-12-12 16:29:59, Michal
> Hocko wrote:
> >> On Thu 13-12-12 10:34:20, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When a
On 12/13/2012 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:> On Thu 13-12-12 16:29:59, Michal
Hocko wrote:
>> On Thu 13-12-12 10:34:20, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
there is
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:05:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:34:20AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
> > > there is swap space
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:34:20AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
> > there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
> > preference anymore. Just
On Thu 13-12-12 16:29:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 13-12-12 10:34:20, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
> > > there is swap space available, pay no attention to
On Thu 13-12-12 10:34:20, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
> > there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
> > preference anymore. Just swap.
> >
> > Note
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
> there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
> preference anymore. Just swap.
>
> Note that this change won't make too big of a difference for
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
preference anymore. Just swap.
Note that this change won't make too big of a difference for
On Thu 13-12-12 10:34:20, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
preference anymore. Just swap.
Note that this
On Thu 13-12-12 16:29:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Thu 13-12-12 10:34:20, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:34:20AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
preference anymore. Just swap.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 02:05:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:34:20AM +, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
there is swap space available,
On 12/13/2012 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 13-12-12 16:29:59, Michal
Hocko wrote:
On Thu 13-12-12 10:34:20, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
there is swap space
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:25:43PM +, Satoru Moriya wrote:
On 12/13/2012 11:05 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: On Thu 13-12-12 16:29:59, Michal
Hocko wrote:
On Thu 13-12-12 10:34:20, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:43:34PM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
When a reclaim scanner is
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 16:43 -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
> there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
> preference anymore. Just swap.
>
Confuse! If it's final scan and still swap space available, why
On 12/12/2012 04:43 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
preference anymore. Just swap.
Note that this change won't make too big of a difference for general
reclaim:
When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
preference anymore. Just swap.
Note that this change won't make too big of a difference for general
reclaim: anonymous pages are already force-scanned when there is
When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
preference anymore. Just swap.
Note that this change won't make too big of a difference for general
reclaim: anonymous pages are already force-scanned when there is
On 12/12/2012 04:43 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
preference anymore. Just swap.
Note that this change won't make too big of a difference for general
reclaim:
On Wed, 2012-12-12 at 16:43 -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote:
When a reclaim scanner is doing its final scan before giving up and
there is swap space available, pay no attention to swappiness
preference anymore. Just swap.
Confuse! If it's final scan and still swap space available, why nr[lru]
38 matches
Mail list logo
