From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from neon.transmeta.com (neon-best.transmeta.com [206.184.214.10]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA32702 for ; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 18:53:15 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:51:11 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: arca-vm-8 [Re: [patch] arca-vm-6, killed kswapd [Re: [patch] new-vm , improvement , [Re: 2.2.0 Bug summary]]] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: steve@netplus.net, brent verner , "Garst R. Reese" , Kalle Andersson , Zlatko Calusic , Ben McCann , bredelin@ucsd.edu, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > The basic reason I didn't want to do this was that I thought it was wrong > > to try to base _any_ decision on any virtual memory sizes. The reason is > > simply that I think RSS isn't a very interesting thing to look at. > > But now I am not looking at RSS, I am looking only at total_vm. The point > of the patch is only to be _balanced_ between passes even if in the system > there are some processes with a total_vm of 1Giga and some processes that > has a total_vm of 1kbyte. In normal conditions the patch _should_ make no > differences... This in my theory at least ;) Ehh, and how do you protect against somebody playing games with your mind by doing _huge_ mappings of something that takes no real memory? The VM footprint of a process is not necessarily related to how much physical memory you use. Basically, I think the thing should either be simple or right, and yours is somewhere in between - neither simple nor strictly correct. Also, I've been happily deleting code, and it has worked wonderfully. This patch adds logic and code back. Linus -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org