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 t
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 w
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? Thi
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
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 execu
5 matches
Mail list logo
