[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: page_launder() on 2.4.9/10 issue
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Jan Harkes wrote:

> The pte_chain allocation stuff looks a bit scary, where did you want
> to reclaim them from when memory runs out, unmap existing pte's?

Exactly. This is the strategy also used by BSD and it seems to
work really well.

> One thing that might be nice, and showed a lot of promise here is to
> either age down by subtracting instead of dividing to make it less
> aggressive. It is already hard enough for pages to get referenced
> enough to move up the scale.

Oh definately, I've tried it with linear page aging and it works
a lot better. I'm just not including that in my patch right now
because I don't want to mix policy and mechanism right now and I
want to really get the mechanism right before moving on to other

> Or use a similar approach as I have in my patch, age up periodically,
> but only age down when there is memory shortage,

Where can I get your patch ?


IA64: a worthy successor to i860.

Send all your spam to (spam digging piggy)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:02    [W:0.322 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site