Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:19:59 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Stephen McKay <syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, syssgm@detir.qld.gov.au, dyson@iquest.net, julian@whistle.com Subject: Re: inode / exec_map interlock ? (follow up) Message-ID: <199902161819.KAA37246@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199902160410.XAA00350@y.dyson.net> <199902161213.WAA28362@nymph.detir.qld.gov.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: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
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199902161819.KAA37246>