Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:55:22 +0800 | From | Wu Fengguang <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages? |
| |
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:56:39AM +0800, Rik van Riel wrote: > Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > Right, but I meant busty page allocations and accesses on them, which > > can make a large continuous segment of referenced pages in LRU list, > > say 50MB. They may or may not be valuable as a whole, however a local > > algorithm may keep the first 4MB and drop the remaining 46MB. > > I wonder if the problem is that we simply do not keep a large > enough inactive list in Jeff's test. If we do not, pages do > not have a chance to be referenced again before the reclaim > code comes in.
Exactly, that's the case I call the list FIFO.
> The cgroup stats should show how many active anon and inactive > anon pages there are in the cgroup.
Jeff, can you have a look at these stats? Thanks!
| |