[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [patch] first bit of vm balancing fixes for 2.3.52-1

To: Kanoj Sarcar <kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] first bit of vm balancing fixes for 2.3.52-1
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:31:42 -0800 (PST)
cc: Ben LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org
In-Reply-To: <200003132328.PAA31009@google.engr.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org

On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Kanoj Sarcar wrote:
> 
> I am not sure about the zone lru_cache, since any claims without extensive
> performance testing is meaningless ... but it does look more cleaner
> theoretically. 

It's certainly "different", and LRU list itself will obviously not be as
"least recently used" as a global LRU. However, considering that we're
only using the LRU on a per-zone basis anyway, I think it should give the
same basic behaviour, no?

And it definitely looked cleaner ;)

		Linus

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] first bit of vm balancing fixes for 2.3.52-1
  - From: kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com (Kanoj Sarcar)

References:
- Re: [patch] first bit of vm balancing fixes for 2.3.52-1
  - From: kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com (Kanoj Sarcar)

Prev by Date: Re: [patch] first bit of vm balancing fixes for 2.3.52-1
Next by Date: Re: [patch] first bit of vm balancing fixes for 2.3.52-1
Prev by thread: Re: [patch] first bit of vm balancing fixes for 2.3.52-1
Next by thread: Re: [patch] first bit of vm balancing fixes for 2.3.52-1
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread