[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Page aging broken in 2.6
>> The current behaviour seems better from a theoretical point of view. 
> I disagree. It's at least not obvious.
>> All
>> we want to know is the reference pattern - whether it is one process
>> referencing the page frequently or 100 processes referencing it
>> infrequently shouldn't matter.
> I agree that those two cases should be the same. And in fact, those two
> cases _will_ be the same by my suggested change ("break out of
> 'page_referenced()' early")
> However, you ignore the third case: a page that is frequently used by 100
> processes.
> Such a page behaves differently with the 'break early' behaviour, by
> pinnong the page more tightly.
> And I think that's the right behaviour. At least that's not "obviously
> wrong".
> It's not something to do in 2.6.x, but I disagree that it's clear-cut.

Could we at least stick a big fat comment explaining the current behaviour
in there? The current behaviour is not at all obvious from reading the code.
I'll try to write something if you like, but no doubt someone could do a
better job than I.


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 13:59    [W:0.050 / U:2.644 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site