Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/9] clockpro-clockpro.patch | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Sun, 01 Jan 2006 11:37:34 +0100 |
| |
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 20:40 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> > > Peter, > > I tried your "scan-shared.c" proggy which loops over 140M of a file > using mmap (on a 128MB box). The number of loops was configured to "5". > > The amount of major/minor pagefaults was exactly the same between > vanilla and clockpro, isnt the clockpro algorithm supposed to be > superior than LRU in such "sequential scan of MEMSIZE+1" cases?
yes it should, hmm, have to look at that then.
What should happen is that nr_cold_target should drop to the bare minimum, which effectivly pins all hot pages and only rotates the few cold pages.
> Oh well, to be sincere, I still haven't understood what makes CLOCK-Pro > use inter reference distance instead of recency, given that its a simple > CLOCK using reference bits (but with three clocks instead of one). > > But thats probably just my ignorance, need to study more.
The reuse distance is in PG_test. Please see the clockpro-documentation patch, which should explain this. If its still not clear after that let me know, I'll be more verbose then.
-- Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
- 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/
| |