From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 21:09:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 21:09:00 -0500 Received: from adsl-63-194-239-202.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.194.239.202]:33019 "EHLO mmp-linux.matchmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 21:08:49 -0500 Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 18:08:40 -0800 From: Mike Fedyk To: Rik van Riel Cc: Ed Tomlinson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] vm_swap_full Message-ID: <20011104180840.A16017@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: Rik van Riel , Ed Tomlinson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20011104152341.A4C289E898@oscar.casa.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 02:36:34PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > > -/* Swap 50% full? Release swapcache more aggressively.. */ > > -#define vm_swap_full() (nr_swap_pages*2 < total_swap_pages) > > +/* Free swap less than inactive pages? Release swapcache more aggressively.. */ > > +#define vm_swap_full() (nr_swap_pages < nr_inactive_pages) > > > Comments? > > Makes absolutely no sense for systems which have more > swap than RAM, eg. a 64MB system with 200MB of swap. > How does the inactive list get bigger than physical ram? If swap is bigger than ram, there is *no* possibility of the inactive list being bigger than swap, and thus no aggressive swapping... Mike