Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:59:51 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Charles Randall <crandall@matchlogic.com>, Roger Larsson <roger.larsson@norran.net>, <arch@FreeBSD.ORG>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <sfkaplan@cs.amherst.edu> Subject: Re: RE: on load control / process swapping Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105161658530.5251-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva> In-Reply-To: <200105161754.f4GHsCd73025@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: > :There's one thing "wrong" with the drop-behind idea though; > :it penalises data even when it's still in core and we're > :reading it for the second or third time. > > It's not dropping the data, it's dropping the priority. And yes, it > does penalize the data somewhat. On the otherhand if the data happens > to still be in the cache and you scan it a second time, the page priority > gets bumped up But doesn't it get pushed _down_ again after the process has read the data? Or is this a part of the code outside of vm/* which I haven't read yet? regards, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33.0105161658530.5251-100000>