Re: Increasing performance by tuning swappiness

2007-09-24 Thread Dan Winship
Chris Ball wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Any thoughts on this subject?
 
 Yes:  we don't use swap.

Not quite; we don't have anywhere to swap *dirty* pages to, but the 
kernel can still swap out shared library code pages and stuff like that, 
because they already exist on disk so it can just read them back from 
there if it needs them later.

-- Dan
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel


Re: [Fwd: + maps-pssproportional-set-size-accounting-in-smaps.patch added to -mm tree]

2007-09-24 Thread Dan Winship
Andres Salomon wrote:
 On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:51:07 -0400
 Bernardo Innocenti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Cool!  Andrew picked up the patch I liked.

 Andres, how about adding it to olpc-2.6 too?  Along with the
 latest Memphis patch, it would give use us invaluable stats
 for those trying to reduce memory usage.

 
 Is it useful for the sugar folks' memory donut?  I'm certainly not opposed
 to including the patch (though I'd want to look over the lkml thread before
 committing), if people find it useful.

PSS is basically the same measure we're currently calculating (a 
little more accurate in some ways, a little less in others). Having the 
kernel calculate PSS would let us draw the ring faster (which would be 
good), but wouldn't affect the accuracy.

The biggest problem the ring has right now is that it doesn't take into 
account the fact that code pages can be swapped back out to disk to 
create more RAM, and so it needs to count inactive pages differently 
from active pages if we want the free-space wedge in the donut to be an 
accurate estimation of the user's ability to launch another activity. 
AFAIK the PSS kernel patch doesn't help with this.

-- Dan
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.laptop.org
http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel