[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081117153012.51ece88f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:30:12 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: evict streaming IO cache first
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:47:20 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:20:26 -0500 Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> Anyway, we need to do something.
>
> Shouldn't get_scan_ratio() be handling this case already?
>
Hmm, could I make a question ?
I think
- recent_rolated[LRU_FILE] is incremented when file cache is moved from
ACTIVE_FILE to INACTIVE_FILE.
- recent_scanned[LRU_FILE] is sum of scanning numbers on INACTIVE/ACTIVE list
of file.
- file caches are added to INACITVE_FILE, at first.
- get_scan_ratio() calculates %file to be
file recent rotated.
%file = IO_cost * ------------ / -------------
anon + file recent scanned.
But when "files are used by streaming or some touch once application",
there is no rotation because they are in INACTIVE FILE at first add_to_lru().
But recent_rotated will not increase while recent_scanned goes bigger and bigger.
Then %file goes to 0 rapidly.
Hmm?
Thanks,
-kame
--
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