linux-kernel - Why active list and inactive list?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45B55286.5060909@nobaq.net>
Date:	Tue, 23 Jan 2007 01:10:46 +0100
From:	Niki Hammler <mailinglists@...aq.net>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Why active list and inactive list?

Dear Linux Developers/Enthusiasts,

For a course at my university I'm implementing parts of an operating
system where I get most ideas from the Linux Kernel (which I like very
much). One book I gain information from is [1].

Linux uses for its Page Replacing Algorithm (based on LRU) *two* chained
lists - one active list and one active list.
I implemented my PRA this way too.

No the big question is: WHY do I need *two* lists? Isn't it just
overhead/more work? Are there any reasons for that?

In my opinion, it would be better to have just one just; pop frames to
be swapped out from the end of the list and push new frames in front of
it. Then just evaluate the frames and shift them around in the list.

Is there any explanation why Linux uses two lists?

Thanks you very much in advance!

Best regards,
Niki

[1] Linux Kernelarchitektur. Konzepte, Strukturen und Algorithmen von
Kernel 2.6. Wolfang Mauerer, Hanser, ISBN 3-446-22566-8

-
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/