Re: Idea about a disc backed ram filesystem
- From: Horst von Brand <vonbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:37:43 -0400
Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/9/06, Horst von Brand <vonbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matheus Izvekov <mizvekov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/8/06, Horst von Brand <vonbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
tmpfs does use swap currently. Giving tmpfs a dedicated swap space
is dumb, as it takes away the possibility of using that space for
swapping when not in use by tmpfs (and viceversa).
The idea is not dumb per se. Maybe you want your applications to swap
to one device (or not swap at all) and a tmpfs mount to swap to
another.
Why? If one device is faster, you'd want to prefer that one for
swapping /and/ tmpfs. If not, I don't see the point. Except for
limiting maximal sizes of tmpfs or swap, but limiting the later doesn't
make much sense (why go OOM even though swap /is/ available?), and the
former can be set on mount.
For me at least it would make a difference.
How?
Ok, but reality is that, even if i setup a swap partition with the
most lazy swapiness, it will swap my processes out.
When you run out of RAM, or the RAM can be put to better use than keeping
stale process data around (you do realize that program code is paged
directly from the executable, don't you?).
Is there a
pratical way to pin all processes to ram or otherwise tell the vm to
never swap any process? If there is, then you are right, there is no
point in doing this.
There is: Max out the RAM on your machine. Don't ever run large processes.
Don't ever read large files.
I dont use swap at all, have enough ram for all my processes.
What is your beef then?
I just wanted to have no swap for my processes, but i wanted swap for
my tmpfs mount, as i explained.
Use a regular filesystem for /tmp, Linux is pretty good at caching file
data. If it isn't enough, complain /with data/ and /details/ of how it
isn't enough...
For my usage, there is no point in
having swap for processes. If something gets to use that much ram,
somethings gone wrong, and it should die anyway instead of getting my
system unusable for several minutes until swap is full too, and then
it dies anyway.
OK. But in any case, this is rare? So it would make not that much of a
difference...
And ive
seen that for some workloads, setting a temporary directory as tmpfs
gives huge speed improvements. But just occasionally, the space used
in this temp dir will not fit in my ram, so in this case swapping
would be fine. The problem is, currently there is no way to enforce
this.
That is exactly how tmpfs works, and has worked that way from the
beginning. If it doesn't for you, it is a bug to report.
I know it works like this, my point was the separation.
Again, I fail to see the point.
Ditto for the fact that, when you have many swap devices set, each
with different performances, there is no way to give priorities/rules
to enforce who uses each device.
There are priorities: See swapon(8). It has worked this way from day one
(or for as long as I can remember, in any case). The "who gets to use swap
and who doesn't" you can control partially via pinning processes to RAM or
limiting their memory use.
When someone gets to implement those features,
Done already, as far as it makes sense.
Good to know, except that there is no way in the universe the
algorithm can be smart enough to be optimal to all usage cases,
Right.
so
some hand fiddling can be desired.
Desired, yes; but not all desires can (or deserve to) be granted...
this wouldnt be needed
anymore.
Case closed.
But that seems far away enough to justify a more immediate
workaround.
On some level you /have/ to trust the system to do things right. It has
much more detailed information (and better response time) than you could
ever hope to get. Besides, adding even more knobs to fiddle just makes the
system more complex (and thus bloated/slow) and harder to manage, for a
limited gain in niche situations.
If it adds so much overhead, it can always be a compile option.
The overhead is not "just" runtime overhead, it is also developer time
consumption, it is more complex testing (need to check it works
with/without), ...
The
system has many knobs already, its always a compromise. Im not giving
any proof that what i described is a good compromise, but at least it
can be.
I've given no proof that "just another knob" is a bad idea either, but the
road to massive suckage is paved with "just another little feature"...
--
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- Re: Idea about a disc backed ram filesystem
- From: Matheus Izvekov
- Re: Idea about a disc backed ram filesystem
- Prev by Date: Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3
- Next by Date: Re: Discovering select(2) parameters from driver's poll method
- Previous by thread: Re: Idea about a disc backed ram filesystem
- Next by thread: Re: Idea about a disc backed ram filesystem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
