Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:08:39 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.8/2.4.9 VM problems |
| |
~ On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 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.
We're using unlazy page activation on -ac so that is not an issue.
- 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/
| |