Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:50:27 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Andrew Mobbs <andrewm@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Re2: msync performance Message-ID: <3C76CB33.988E246F@mindspring.com> References: <15478.31998.459219.178549@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <200202222042.g1MKg4u22700@apollo.backplane.com> <3C76C1C7.248128A4@mindspring.com> <200202222240.g1MMeQP31567@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Dillon wrote: > :You will need to put it on two lists, I think. > : > :Though it is not sorted in adjacency order, it is sorted > :into LRU order, I think, and simply resorting by adjacency > :would destroy the LRU property. > > Nope, object->memq is not sorted in any order whatsover. I saw your patch. Read other message. 8-). > :Alternately, does msync() use count as "use" for the > :purposes of LRU? If so, I'm all wet, and sorting it will > :work, if it's only done at msync() time (e.g. you won't > :be able to use an insertion sort). > > What 'count' are you refering to? That's "use count", not "usecount". It's "count" as in "has meaning as a significator". 8-). I mean does msync() preterb the LRU order, by counting as a recent use? It's probably wrong to preterb the order, since what you are doing is forcing pages *out*. If you want them *out*, then they probably have lower locality than the pages you decided not to force out. In other words, msync() should probably not change the LRU order. -- Terry 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?3C76CB33.988E246F>