Re: [PATCH] 2.2.17pre7 VM enhancement Re: I/O performance on2.4.0-test2

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On 11 Jul 2000, Juan J. Quintela wrote:

>If you are copying in the background a cp and you don't touch your
>vi/emacs/whatever pages in 2 hours (i.e. age = 0) then I think that it
>is ok for that pages to be swaped out.  Notice that the cage pages
>will have _initial age_  and the pages of the binaries will have an
>_older_ age.

If we want to do that we can do that. My design doesn't forbid this. I
only avoid the overhead of the inactive list.

Also note that what I was really complaining is to threat the lru_cached
and lru_mapped list equally. If you threat them equally you get in
troubles as I pointed out. I just want to say that lru_mapped have much
more priority than lru_cache. If you give the higher priority with a aging
factor, or I give higher priority with a different falling back behaviour
it doesn't matter (with the difference that I avoid overhead of refiling
between lru lists and I avoid to roll ex-mapped-pages in the lru_cache
list just to decrease their age).

Andrea

--
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/