[lkml]   [2000]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: test13-pre5
    Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > - global dirty list for global syn(). We don't have one, and I don't
    > think we want one. We could add a few lists, and split up the active
    > list into "active" and "active_dirty", for example, but I don't like
    > the implications that would probably have for the LRU ordering.

    This has been the subject of a lot of flam^H^H^H^H discussion on
    #kernelnewbies about this and it's still an open question. The only way
    to see if a separate active_dirty hurts or helps is to try it. Later.

    I don't see how a separate active_dirty list can hurt LRU ordering. We
    could still take the pages off the two lists in the same order we did
    with one list if we wanted to, or at least, statistically the same in
    turns of number, age, time since entering the list, etc. That better
    not cause radically different or undesireable behaviour or something is
    really broken.

    By breaking active into two lists we'd get a very interesting tuning
    parameter to play with: the relative rate at which pages are moved from
    active to inactive. Beyond that, the active_dirty list could be pressed
    into service quite easily as a page-oriented version of kflushd, and
    would obviously be useful as a global sync list.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:52    [W:0.019 / U:46.676 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site