[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070725115012.GB27498@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:50:12 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, david@...g.hm,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>,
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>, Paul Jackson <pj@....com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
* Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com> wrote:
> > and the fact is: updatedb discards a considerable portion of the
> > cache completely unnecessarily: on a reasonably complex box no way
> > do all the inodes and dentries fit into all of RAM, so we just trash
> > everything.
>
> Okay, but unless I've now managed to really quite horribly confuse
> myself, that wouldn't have anything to do with _swap_ prefetch would
> it?
it's connected: it would remove updatedb from the VM picture altogether.
(updatedb would just cycle through the files with leaving minimal cache
disturbance.)
hence swap-prefetch could concentrate on the cases where it makes sense
to start swap prefetching _without_ destroying other, already cached
content: such as when a large app exits and frees gobs of memory back
into the buddy allocator. _That_ would be a definitive "no costs and
side-effects" point for swap-prefetch to kick in, and it would eliminate
this pretty artificial (and unnecessary) 'desktop versus server'
controversy and would turn it into a 'helps everyone' feature.
Ingo
-
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