Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 21 Sep 2001 11:23:29 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: broken VM in 2.4.10-pre9 |
| |
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> The list is an okay way to determine rank within a class, but I still > think that there is a need for some balance between text, program data, > pages loaded via i/o, perhaps more. My disquiet with the new > implementation is based on a desire to avoid swapping program data to make > room for i/o data (using those terms in a loose way for identification).
Preference for evicting one kind of cache is indeed a bad thing. It might work for 90% of the workloads, but you can be sure it breaks horribly for the other 10%.
I'm currently busy tweaking the old 2.4 VM (in the -ac kernels) to try and get optimal performance from that one, without giving preference to one kind of cache ... except in the situation where the amount of cache is excessive.
> I would also like to have time to investigate what happens if the pages > associated with a program load are handled in larger blocks, meta-pages > perhaps, which would at least cause many to be loaded at once on a page > fault, rather than faulting them in one at a time.
This is an interesting thing, too. Something to look into for 2.5 and if it turns out simple enough we may even want to backport it to 2.4.
regards,
Rik -- IA64: a worthy successor to i860.
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy)
- 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/
|  |