[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.6.4-rc2-mm1: vm-split-active-lists

Andrew Morton wrote:

>Nick Piggin <> wrote:
>>Just had a try of doing things like updatedb and dd if=/dev/zero of=./blah
>>It is pretty swappy I guess.
>You'll need to bring the scanning priority back into the picture: don't
>move mapped pages down onto the inactive list at low scanning priorities.
>And that eans retaining the remember-the-priority-from-last-time logic.
>Otherwise it's inevitable that even a `cat monster_file > /dev/null' will
>eventually swap out everything it can.

Hmm I dunno. At mapped_page_cost 8, I don't think it is swappy enough
that your desktop users will be running into problems. I need to write
4GB of file to push out 70MB of swap here (256MB RAM). And not much of
that swap has come back in, by the way...

>>By the way, I would be interested to know the rationale behind
>>mark_page_accessed as it is without this patch, also what is it doing in
>>rmap.c (I know hardly anything actually uses page_test_and_clear_young, but
>>still). It seems to me like it only serves to make VM behaviour harder to
>>understand, but I'm probably missing something. Andrew?
>hm, that's left-over code which is pretty pointless now.
> if (page_test_and_clear_young(page))
> mark_page_accessed(page);
> if (TestClearPageReferenced(page))
> referenced++;
>The pages in here are never on the LRU, so all the mark_page_accessed()
>will do is to set PG_Referenced. And we immediately clear it again. So
>the mark_page_accessed() can be replaced with referenced++.

Yep, see the patch I'd attached before.

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 14:01    [W:0.033 / U:2.988 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site