On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 07:06:57PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > Good. One of the problems we always had in the past, though, was that
> > getting the relative aging of cache vs. vmas was easy if you had a
> > small set of test loads, but it was really, really hard to find a
> > balance that didn't show pathological behaviour in the worst cases.
>
> Yep, that's not trivial.
It is. Just do physical-page based aging (so you age all the
pages in the system the same) and the problem is solved.
> > > I may be overlooking something but where do you notice when a page
> > > gets unmapped from the last mapping and put it back into a place
> > > that can be reached from shrink_mmap (or whatever the cache recycler is)?
> >
> > It doesn't --- that is part of the design. The vm scanner propagates
>
> And that's the inferior part of the design IMHO.
Indeed, but physical page based aging is a definate
2.5 thing ... ;(
regards,
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:16 EST