[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC 1/2] deactive invalidated pages
    On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Andrew Morton
    <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:05:39 +0900 Minchan Kim <> wrote:
    >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton
    >> >> > move it to the head of the LRU anyway. __But given that the user has
    >> >>
    >> >> Why does it move into head of LRU?
    >> >> If the page which isn't mapped doesn't have PG_referenced, it would be
    >> >> reclaimed.
    >> >
    >> > If it's dirty or under writeback it can't be reclaimed!
    >> I see your point. And it's why I add it to head of inactive list.
    > But that *guarantees* that the page will get a full trip around the
    > inactive list.  And this will guarantee that potentially useful pages
    > are reclaimed before the pages which we *know* the user doesn't want!
    > Bad!
    > Whereas if we queue it to the tail, it will only get that full trip if
    > reclaim happens to run before the page is cleaned.  And we just agreed
    > that reclaim isn't likely to run immediately, because pages are being
    > freed.
    > So we face a choice between guaranteed eviction of potentially-useful
    > pages (which are very expensive to reestablish) versus a *possible*
    > need to move an unreclaimable page to the head of the LRU, which is
    > cheap.

    How about flagging SetPageReclaim when we add it to head of inactive?
    If page write is complete, end_page_writeback would move it to tail of

    Kind regards,
    Minchan Kim
    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: 2010-11-23 08:47    [W:0.021 / U:26.944 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site