Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 4 Sep 2001 12:56:32 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: page_launder() on 2.4.9/10 issue |
| |
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Jan Harkes wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 01:27:50PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > I've been working on a CPU and memory efficient reverse > > mapping patch for Linux, one which will allow us to do > > a bunch of optimisations for later on (infrastructure) > > and has as its short-term benefit the potential for > > better page aging. > > Yes, I can see that using reverse mappings would be a way of correcting > the aging if you call page_age_up from try_to_swap_out, in which case > there probably needs to be a page_age_down on virtual mappings as well > to correctly balance things. > > > It seems the balancing FreeBSD does (up aging +3, down > > aging -1, inactive list in LRU order as extra stage) is > > One other observation, we should add anonymously allocated memory to the > active-list as soon as they are allocated in do_nopage. At the moment a > large part of memory is not aged at all until we start swapping things > out.
With reverse mappings we can completly remove the "swap_out()" loop logic and age pte's at refill_inactive_scan().
All that with anon memory added to the active-list as soon as allocated, of course.
Jan, I suggest you to take a look at the reverse mapping code.
- 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/
|  |