On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> I think yes. 0 swappiness doesn't mean "no swapping at all". From the
> code in shrink_active_list() it seems that it just decreases likeliness
> of removing pages of mmaped files (i.e., also executables loaded in memory).
So, I tried
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
I think yes. 0 swappiness doesn't mean no swapping at all. From the
code in shrink_active_list() it seems that it just decreases likeliness
of removing pages of mmaped files (i.e., also executables loaded in memory).
So, I tried to
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:38:13 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there a way to avoid it except turning off the swap?
> >
> Maybe...no.
>
Ah, sorry. If too much dirty page by ftp is trouble, tuning
/proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio
/proc/sys/vm/dirty_writeback/centisecs
etc..
may
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:17:26 +0100
Lukas Hejtmanek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> does /proc/sys/vm/swappiness still work as expected?
> # /proc/sys/vm# cat swappiness
> 0
>
> but scp-ing 2GB file causes many processes are swapped out due to increase of
> the file cache size. Why?
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> Yes, that's quite unpleasant. How much memory do you have? If you have
> some time, you can try playing with the code in mm/vmscan.c to find out
> what's happening in your case (putting some debugging output in
> shrink_active_list()
Hello,
> does /proc/sys/vm/swappiness still work as expected?
> # /proc/sys/vm# cat swappiness
> 0
I think yes. 0 swappiness doesn't mean "no swapping at all". From the
code in shrink_active_list() it seems that it just decreases likeliness
of removing pages of mmaped files (i.e., also
Hello,
does /proc/sys/vm/swappiness still work as expected?
# /proc/sys/vm# cat swappiness
0
but scp-ing 2GB file causes many processes are swapped out due to increase of
the file cache size. Why? This is totally catastrophic behaviour on the desktop.
Is there a way to avoid it except turning
Hello,
does /proc/sys/vm/swappiness still work as expected?
# /proc/sys/vm# cat swappiness
0
but scp-ing 2GB file causes many processes are swapped out due to increase of
the file cache size. Why? This is totally catastrophic behaviour on the desktop.
Is there a way to avoid it except turning
Hello,
does /proc/sys/vm/swappiness still work as expected?
# /proc/sys/vm# cat swappiness
0
I think yes. 0 swappiness doesn't mean no swapping at all. From the
code in shrink_active_list() it seems that it just decreases likeliness
of removing pages of mmaped files (i.e., also
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
Yes, that's quite unpleasant. How much memory do you have? If you have
some time, you can try playing with the code in mm/vmscan.c to find out
what's happening in your case (putting some debugging output in
shrink_active_list() etc...
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:17:26 +0100
Lukas Hejtmanek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
does /proc/sys/vm/swappiness still work as expected?
# /proc/sys/vm# cat swappiness
0
but scp-ing 2GB file causes many processes are swapped out due to increase of
the file cache size. Why? This is
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 10:38:13 +0900
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to avoid it except turning off the swap?
Maybe...no.
Ah, sorry. If too much dirty page by ftp is trouble, tuning
/proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio
/proc/sys/vm/dirty_writeback/centisecs
etc..
may work for
12 matches
Mail list logo
