[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45472736.8030701@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:06:38 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
CC: Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...nvz.org>, vatsa@...ibm.com,
dev@...nvz.org, sekharan@...ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, haveblue@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pj@....com, matthltc@...ibm.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, rohitseth@...gle.com, menage@...gle.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Vaidyanathan S <svaidy@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] RFC: Memory Controller
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:49:12 +0530
> Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> The idea behind limiting the page cache is this
>>
>> 1. Lets say one container fills up the page cache.
>> 2. The other containers will not be able to allocate memory (even
>> though they are within their limits) without the overhead of having
>> to flush the page cache and freeing up occupied cache. The kernel
>> will have to pageout() the dirty pages in the page cache.
>
> There's a vast difference between clean pagecache and dirty pagecache in this
> context. It is terribly imprecise to use the term "pagecache". And it would be
> a poor implementation which failed to distinguish between clean pagecache and
> dirty pagecache.
>
Yes, I agree, it will be a good idea to distinguish between the two.
--
Balbir Singh,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs
-
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