Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:22:26 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: RFC: design for new VM |
| |
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > > The lists are not at all dependant on where the pages come > from. The lists are dependant on the *page age*. This almost > sounds like you didn't read my mail... ;(
I did read the email. And I understand that. And that's exactly why I think a single-list is equivalent (because your lists basically act simply as "caches" of the page age).
> NO. We need different queues so waiting for pages to be flushed > to disk doesn't screw up page aging of the other pages (the ones > we absolutely do not want to evict from memory yet).
Ehh.. Did you read _my_ mail?
Go back. Read it. Realize that your "multiple queues" is nothing more than "cached information". They do not change _behaviour_ at all. They only change the amount of CPU-time you need to parse it.
Your arguments do not seem to address this issue at all.
In my mailbox I have an email from you as of yesterday (or the day before) which says: - I will not try to balance the current MM because it is not doable
And I don't see that your suggestion is fundamentally adding anything but a CPU timesaver.
Basically, answer me this _simple_ question: what _behavioural_ differences do you claim multiple queues have? Ignore CPU usage for now.
I'm claiming they are just a cache.
And you claim that the current MM cannot be balanced, but your new one can.
Please reconcile these two things for me.
Linus
- 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/
| |