On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jason McMullan wrote:
> If we take all the motivations from the above, and list
> them, we get:
>
> * Don't write to the (slow,packeted) devices until
> you need to free up memory for processes.
> * Never cache reads from immediate/fast devices.
> * Keep packetized devices as continuously-idle as possible.
> Small chunks of idleness don't count. You want to have
> maximal stetches of idleness for the device.
> * Keep running processes as fully in memory as possible.
I agree with your modification, and with the obvious 4
points above ...
> * If we're getting low cache hit rates, don't flush
> processes to swap.
> * If we're getting good cache hit rates, flush old, idle
> processes to swap.
... but I fail to see this one. If we get a low cache hit
rate, couldn't that just mean we allocated too little memory
for the cache ?
I am very much interested in continuing this discussion...
Also, how would we translate all these requirements into
VM strategies ?
regards,
Rik
-- Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release: "we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 30 2001 - 21:00:15 EST