Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:21:21 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: VM Requirement Document - v0.0 |
| |
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/
| |