On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> >> So basically we'll have these completly different lists:
> >>
> >> lru_swap_cache
> >> lru_cache
> >> lru_mapped
> >>
> >> The three caches have completly different importance that is implicit by
> >> the semantics of the memory they are queuing.
> >
> >I think this is entirely the wrong way to be thinking about the
> >problem. It seems to me to be much more important that we know:
>
> Think what happens if we shrink lru_mapped first. That would be
> an obviously wrong behaviour and this proof we have to consider
> a priority between lists.
No. You just wrote down the strongest argument in favour of one
unified queue for all types of memory usage.
(insert QED here)
regards,
Rik
-- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength.Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies 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.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:13 EST