| Subject | Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model | From | Rik van Riel <> | Date | Mon, 06 Jun 2016 22:34:43 -0400 |
| |
On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is > balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat > vague > notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That > concept of value is problematic, because it has caused us to count > any > event that remotely makes one LRU list more or less preferrable for > reclaim, even when these events are not directly comparable to each > other and impose very different costs on the system - such as a > referenced file page that we still deactivate and a referenced > anonymous page that we actually rotate back to the head of the list. >
Well, patches 7-10 answered my question on patch 6 :)
I like this design.
-- All Rights Reversed.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |