![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Balbir Singh wrote: > >> This makes me wonder if it makes sense to split up the LRU into page >> cache LRU and mapped pages LRU. I see two benefits >> >> 1. Currently based on swappiness, we might walk an entire list >> searching for page cache pages or mapped pages. With these >> lists separated, it should get easier and faster to implement >> this scheme >> 2. There is another parallel thread on implementing page cache >> limits. If the lists split out, we need not scan the entire >> list to find page cache pages to evict them. >> >> Of course I might be missing something (some piece of history) > > This means page cache = unmapped file backed page right? Otherwise this > would not work. I always thought that the page cache were all file backed > pages both mapped and unmapped. > Yes, unfortunately my terminology was not clear. I mean unmapped file backed pages. > With the proposed schemd you would have to move pages between lists if > they are mapped and unmapped by a process. Terminating a process could > lead to lots of pages moving to the unnmapped list. > When you unmap or map, you need to touch the pte entries and know the pages involved, so shouldn't be equivalent to a list_del and list_add for each page impacted by the map/unmap operation? -- Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL - 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: 2007-01-23 05:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||