Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:59:31 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> To: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pageout question Message-ID: <4C4DE923.5030307@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20100726185348.63ebf916@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <4C4B4BAB.3000005@freebsd.org> <20100725003144.3cfead39@gumby.homeunix.com> <4C4C0CD9.6000002@freebsd.org> <20100725144141.6f1f33cc@gumby.homeunix.com> <4C4C47FD.6080802@freebsd.org> <20100725212849.1e07f40c@gumby.homeunix.com> <4C4CA1DC.2050902@freebsd.org> <20100726185348.63ebf916@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 26/07/2010 20:53 RW said the following: > If after the first pass with light-paging the high watermark isn't > reached then the choices are > > 1) loop and immediately do a heavy-paging pass. > > 2) wait and let the daemon get woken-up for another light-paging pass - > only go to heavy-paging when this strategy isn't keeping up with demand. > > To me (2) is doing the right thing. It's trying to satisfy demand from > existing clean pages, and only paging heavily as a last resort. Well, based on my observations, if the first pass doesn't reach the high watermark, then we are in a high pressure situation and so we would have to do some heavy-lifting anyways. In my opinion, it's better to start doing more work at once than trying to pretend that situation would somehow resolve itself. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C4DE923.5030307>