Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:44:23 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: void <float@firedrake.org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Solaris 8's split cache Message-ID: <20001024114423.I28123@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <20001024193724.A8443@firedrake.org>; from float@firedrake.org on Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 07:37:24PM %2B0100 References: <20001024193724.A8443@firedrake.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* void <float@firedrake.org> [001024 11:37] wrote: > http://sunsolve.Sun.COM/pub-cgi/show.pl?target=content/content8#cyclical > > BSD doesn't do anything like this (distinguishing between instructions > and data in the VM cache), does it? Should it? It's an interesting idea, the only weirdness is that one could pretty easily tie down a lot of memory with underused instruction data and force the filesystem cache to use a much smaller subset of memory than it should degrading performance, it could also work against you in the opposite direction. If solaris is able to put these pages on a "general inactive+free queue" after some time so that pages can migrate between the two caches it would help out some. Interestingly enough we're trying to address a problem related to this in FreeBSD right now, but I'm not sure the Solaris solution is the right way to go. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001024114423.I28123>