lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: VM Requirement Document - v0.0
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 06:21:21PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > * If we're getting low cache hit rates, don't flush
> > processes to swap.
> > * If we're getting good cache hit rates, flush old, idle
> > processes to swap.
>
> ... but I fail to see this one. If we get a low cache hit
> rate, couldn't that just mean we allocated too little memory
> for the cache ?

Hmmm. I didn't take that into consideration. But at the
same time, shouldn't a VM be able to determine that its cache
strategy is causing _more_ (absolute) misses by increasing it
cache size? The percentage of misses may go down, but total
device I/O may stay the same.

So let's see... I'll rephrase that 'Motiviation' as:

* Minimize the total medium/slow I/Os that occur over a
sliding window of time.

Is that a more general case?

> Also, how would we translate all these requirements into
> VM strategies ?

First, I would like to translate them into measurements.
Once we know how to measure these criteria, its possible to
formalize the feedback mechanism/accounting that a VM should
be aware of.

In the end, I would like a VM to have some idea of
how well its performing, and be able to attempt various
well-known strategies based upon its own performance.

--
Jason McMullan, Senior Linux Consultant
Linuxcare, Inc. 412.432.6457 tel, 412.656.3519 cell
jmcmullan@linuxcare.com, http://www.linuxcare.com/
Linuxcare. Putting open source to work.
-
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: 2005-03-22 12:55    [W:0.082 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site