Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:20:50 -0500 (EST) | From | Chuck Lever <> | Subject | Re: Linux-2.2.4 testpatch.. |
| |
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > I think the point Chuck was trying to make was not that preserving > buffers was good because of making a pool of quick-allocation free > buffers, but because doing so preserved the *contents* of those > buffers ---- this is because try_to_free_buffers() doesn't take into > account whether the buffers on any particular pages are often > referenced. So if the buffers contain the disk blocks corresponding to > some commonly used executable that just doesn't happen to be in use at > the moment, try_to_free_buffers will evict the page, thus forcing the > disk blocks to be read in from disk the next time they are needed. > > While I agree with you that leaving b_coutn as 1 is a really horrible > way of fixing this problem, the real solution which is quite urgently > needed is to put some more smarts into try_to_free_buffers....
what ted said... :) i wasn't thinking of quick-allocation, although that would/has helped too. my concern was and is the arbitrariness of try_to_free_buffers() selection of which page to steal.
- Chuck Lever -- corporate: <chuckl@netscape.com> personal: <chucklever@netscape.net> or <cel@monkey.org>
The Linux Scalability project: http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/citi-netscape/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |