Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:49:12 -0400 | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] splitlru: BDI_CAP_SWAP_BACKED |
| |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:23:54 +0100 (BST) Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > > > > Hmm, how about adding LRU only for shmem/tmpfs ? nonsense ? ;) > > I'd much prefer not: the more LRUs, the more balancing problems; > And I don't think shmem/tmpfs _deserves_ its own LRUs. > But it cannot be ruled out.
Tmpfs is often in the same boat as anonymous memory. Used for shared memory segments, or for files that are temporary and will be gone soon.
If swap space runs out, tmpfs pages should not be scanned.
To me, this suggests they should probably continue to live on the *_ANON LRUs. Worst case we make tmpfs pages in files that are not mmaped (/tmp use) start out on the inactive list, so they get evicted first.
-- All rights reversed.
| |