lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:4.996 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site