[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.4.8/2.4.9 VM problems
    On August 20, 2001 09:12 pm, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
    > > On August 20, 2001 09:14 pm, Mike Galbraith wrote:
    > > > We need to get the pages 'actioned' (the only thing that really matters)
    > > > off of the dirty list so that they are out of the equation.. that I'm
    > > > sure of.
    > >
    > > Well, except when the page is only going to be used once, or not at all (in
    > > the case of an unused readahead page). Otherwise, no, we don't want to have
    > > frequently used pages or pages we know nothing about dropping of the inactive
    > > queue into the bit-bucket. There's more work to do to make that come true.
    > Find riel's message with topic "VM tuning" to linux-mm, then take a look
    > at the 4th aging option.
    > That one _should_ be able to make us remove all kinds of "hacks" to do
    > drop behind, and also it should keep hot/warm active memory _in cache_
    > for more time.

    I looked at it yesterday. The problem is, it loses the information about *how*
    a page is used: pagecache lookup via readahead has different implications than
    actual usage. The other thing that looks a little problematic, which Rik also
    pointed out, is the potential long lag before the inactive page is detected.
    A lot of IO can take place in this time, filling up the active list with pages
    that we could have evicted much earlier.

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:57    [W:0.029 / U:7.876 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site