Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:10:43 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch] adjustments to dirty memory thresholds |
| |
Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > But sigh. Pointlessly scanning zillions of dirty pages and doing > > nothing with them is dumb. So much better to go for a FIFO snooze on a > > per-zone waitqueue, be woken when some memory has been cleansed. > > But not per-zone, since many (most?) allocations can be satisfied > from multiple zones. Guess what 2.4-rmap has had for ages ?
Per-classzone ;)
> Interested in a port for 2.5 on top of 2.5.32-mm2 ? ;) > > [I'll mercilessly increase your patch queue since it doesn't show > any sign of ever shrinking anyway]
Lack of patches is not a huge problem at present ;). It's getting them tested for performance, stability and general does-good-thingsness which is the rate limiting step.
The next really significant design change in the queue is slablru, and we'll need to let that sit in partial isolation for a while to make sure that it's doing what we want it to do.
But yes, I'm interested in a port of the code, and in the description of the problems which it solves, and how it solves them. But what is even more valuable than the code is a report of its before-and-after effectiveness under a broad range of loads on a broad range of hardware. That's the most time-consuming part... - 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/
| |