> It is. Prefetched pages can be dropped on the floor without additional I/O. Which is essentially free for most cases. In addition your disk access may well have been in idle time (and should be for this sort of stuff) and if it was in the same chunk as something nearby was effectively free anyway. Actual physical disk ops are precious resource and anything that mostly reduces the number will be a win - not to stay swap prefetch is the right answer but accidentally or otherwise there are good reasons it may happen to help. Bigger more linear chunks of writeout/readin is much more important I suspect than swap prefetching. > good overview of exactly how broken -mm can be at times. How many -mm users > use it anyway? He himself said he's not convinced of usefulness having not I've been using it for months with no noticed problem. I turn it on because it might as well get tested. I've not done comparison tests so I can't comment on if its worth it. Lots of -mm testers turn *everything* on because its a test kernel. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com>
- Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- From: david@lang.hm
- Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- From: "Ray Lee" <ray-lk@madrabbit.org>
- Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- References:
- Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: "Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
- Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
- Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
- Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>
- Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com>
- Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- From: david@lang.hm
- Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com>
- Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- From: david@lang.hm
- Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com>
- Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Prev by Date: Re: How can we make page replacement smarter (was: swap-prefetch)
- Next by Date: Re: How to register block device as read-only
- Previous by thread: Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- Next by thread: Re: RFT: updatedb "morning after" problem [was: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23]
- Index(es):
![]() |