From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 16 10:20:13 1999 Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA18020 for ; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:20:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id KAA37246; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:19:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:19:59 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199902161819.KAA37246@apollo.backplane.com> To: Stephen McKay Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au, dyson@iquest.net, julian@whistle.com Subject: Re: inode / exec_map interlock ? (follow up) References: <199902160410.XAA00350@y.dyson.net> <199902161213.WAA28362@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :The pagedaemon on a test machine of mine used to spend much time waiting on :"swpfre". Now, under 4.0, the paging rate has shot up (about 2x as a guess) :and it is much less responsive. Of course it has only 16Mb of ram, and I :thrash it. But I favour John's view that the new swap pager has a deficiency :that must be rectified before it can be considered better (in all cases) than :the previous version. : :Stephen. The swpfre blockage was explicitly commented as being there to avoid a low-memory deadlock. Nothing more, nothing less. It was removed when there was no more danger of there being a low-memory deadlock. If it is supposed to serve another undocumented function it would not be particularly difficult to adjust the getpbuf() in the new swap pager to a trypbuf() and limit the number of parallel I/O's in that regard. In fact, it would be trivial. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message