[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: page_launder() on 2.4.9/10 issue
    On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Jan Harkes wrote:

    > The pte_chain allocation stuff looks a bit scary, where did you want
    > to reclaim them from when memory runs out, unmap existing pte's?

    Exactly. This is the strategy also used by BSD and it seems to
    work really well.

    > One thing that might be nice, and showed a lot of promise here is to
    > either age down by subtracting instead of dividing to make it less
    > aggressive. It is already hard enough for pages to get referenced
    > enough to move up the scale.

    Oh definately, I've tried it with linear page aging and it works
    a lot better. I'm just not including that in my patch right now
    because I don't want to mix policy and mechanism right now and I
    want to really get the mechanism right before moving on to other

    > Or use a similar approach as I have in my patch, age up periodically,
    > but only age down when there is memory shortage,

    Where can I get your patch ?


    IA64: a worthy successor to i860.

    Send all your spam to (spam digging piggy)

    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 13:02    [W:0.023 / U:4.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site