![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 17:26:05 -0800 Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote: > Andrew wrote: > > But in this application which you are proposing, any correlation with > > elapsed walltime is very slight. It's just the wrong baseline to use. > > What is the *sense* in it? > > Ah - but time is cheap as dirt, and scales like the common cold virus. > That makes it sinfully attractive for secondary affect placement cache > hints like this. > > What else would you suggest? > > Same question applies, I suppose, to my zonelist caching patch that is > sitting in your *-mm patch stack, where you also had doubts about using > wall clock time to decay the fullnode hints. Depends what it's doing. "number of pages allocated" would be a good "clock" to use in the VM. Or pages scanned. Or per-cpu-pages reloads. Something which adjusts to what's going on. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-04 01:45 [W:0.696 / U:0.190 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||