On Do, 20.09.18 21:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl) wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:04:14PM -0700, Dulaney wrote:
> On Sult 20, 2018 aig 10:59:44m -0600, sgrìobh Chris Murphy:
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:34 AM, <mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org> wrote:
> > > I've seen suggestions to use 0 as well.
> > I would try 1. I'm pretty sure 0 will just disable swap which doesn't
> > really help us figure out if it's just the swappiness setting being
> > too aggressive.
> Yeah, 0 essentially disables swap. Go with 1.
vm.swapiness doesn't really solve the problem of
"we need large swap so hibernation always works, but we don't
want to use that swap for actual swapping because that'd be slow
We could in theory also activate the swap partition only when we need
it for hibernation, and deactivate it after hibernation, i.e. enclose
the actual hibernation operation with a tight swapon/swapoff.
That said, this feels all a bit too much like superficial tweaking to
me. If Linux swap behaviour sucks it's really up to the kernel folks
to fix it, and we shouldn't add new infrastructure around it in
userspace that tries to make it less bad without touching the actual
problems with it.
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat