On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/09/2012 12:57 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> >> On Sat, 2012-08-25 at 16:56 +0200, Zdenek Kaspar wrote: >>> >>> Hi Greg, >>> >>> >>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commit;h=fe35004fbf9eaf67482b074a2e032abb9c89b1dd >>> >>> In short: this patch seems beneficial for users trying to avoid memory >>> swapping at all costs but they want to keep swap for emergency reasons. >>> >>> More details: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/2/320 >>> >>> Its included in 3.5, so could this be considered for -longterm kernels ? >> >> >> Andrew, Rik, does this seem appropriate for longterm? > > > Yes, absolutely. Default behaviour is not changed at all, and > the patch makes swappiness=0 do what people seem to expect it > to do. Just curious, but what theoretically would happen if someone were to want to set swappiness to 200 or something? Should it be sorta like vfs_cache_pressure? > -- > All rights reversed > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>