[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6e0cfd1d0607270416g1248e93fi123b6ada852ff242@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:16:45 +0200
From: "Martin Schwidefsky" <schwidefsky@...glemail.com>
To: "Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: "Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...l.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: inactive-clean list
On 7/26/06, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> Wouldn't we typically have all free pages > min_free in state U?
> Also wouldn't all R/O mapped pages not also be V, all R/W mapped pages
> and unmapped page-cache pages P like you state in your paper.
Ahh, ok, I misunderstood. You want to keep the state changes for clean
page cache pages, I assumed that you only want to make pages volatile
if the get on the inactive_clean list and leave them stable if they
are on one of the other two lists.
> This patch would just increase the number of V pages with the tail end
> of the guest LRU, which are typically the pages you would want to evict
> (perhaps even add 5th guest state to indicate that these V pages are
> preferable over the others?)
Yes, that would help for architectures that cannot implement the
potential-volatile state.
> But isn't it so that for the gross over-commit scenario you outline the
> host OS will have to swap out S pages eventually?
My point was that you really have to distinguish between host memory
pressure and guest memory pressure.
--
blue skies,
Martin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists