Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:40:14 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [patch] vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 - fixing deadlocks |
| |
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 11:39:18AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > OK, good to see that we agree on the fact that we > > should age and swapout all pages equally agressively. > > Actually I think we should start looking at the mapped stuff > _only_ when the I/O cache aging is relevant. If the I/O cache > aging isn't relevant there's no point to look at the mapped > stuff since there's cache pollution going on.
> If the cache is re-used (so if it's useful) that's completly > different issue and in that case unmapping potentially unused > stuff is the right thing to do of course.
This is why I want to do:
1) equal aging of all pages in the system 2) page aging to have properties of both LRU and LFU 3) drop-behind to cope with streaming IO in a good way
and maybe: 4) move unmapped pages to the inactive_clean list for immediate reclaiming but put pages which are/were mapped on the inactive_dirty list so we keep it a little bit longer
The only way to reliably know if the cache is re-used a lot is by making sure we do the page aging for unmapped and mapped pages the same. If we don't do that, we won't be able to make a sensible comparison between the activity of pages in different places.
regards,
Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |