On 11 Jul 2000, Juan J. Quintela wrote:
>If you are copying in the background a cp and you don't touch your
>vi/emacs/whatever pages in 2 hours (i.e. age = 0) then I think that it
>is ok for that pages to be swaped out. Notice that the cage pages
>will have _initial age_ and the pages of the binaries will have an
>_older_ age.
If we want to do that we can do that. My design doesn't forbid this. I
only avoid the overhead of the inactive list.
Also note that what I was really complaining is to threat the lru_cached
and lru_mapped list equally. If you threat them equally you get in
troubles as I pointed out. I just want to say that lru_mapped have much
more priority than lru_cache. If you give the higher priority with a aging
factor, or I give higher priority with a different falling back behaviour
it doesn't matter (with the difference that I avoid overhead of refiling
between lru lists and I avoid to roll ex-mapped-pages in the lru_cache
list just to decrease their age).
Andrea
-
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