[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701221837210.30653@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:44:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
cc: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...e.de>,
Niki Hammler <mailinglists@...aq.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Why active list and inactive list?
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Rik van Riel wrote:
> The big one is how we are to do some background aging in a
> clock-pro system, so referenced bits don't just pile up when
> the VM has enough memory - otherwise we might not know the
> right pages to evict when a new process starts up and starts
> allocating lots of memory.
There are two bad choices right?
1. Scan for reference bits
Bad because we may have to scan quite a bit without too much
result. LRU allows us to defer this until memory is tight.
Any such scan will pollute the cache and cause a stall of
the app. You really do not want this for a realtime system.
2. Take faults on reference and update the page state.
Bad because this means a fault if the reference bit
has not been set. Could be many faults.
Clock pro really requires 2 right? So lots of additional page faults?
-
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