[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1276214852.6437.1427.camel@nimitz>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:07:32 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/T/D][PATCH 2/2] Linux/Guest cooperative unmapped page
cache control
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 19:55 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > I'm not sure victimizing unmapped cache pages is a good idea.
> > Shouldn't page selection use the LRU for recency information instead
> > of the cost of guest reclaim? Dropping a frequently used unmapped
> > cache page can be more expensive than dropping an unused text page
> > that was loaded as part of some executable's initialization and
> > forgotten.
>
> We victimize the unmapped cache only if it is unused (in LRU order).
> We don't force the issue too much. We also have free slab cache to go
> after.
Just to be clear, let's say we have a mapped page (say of /sbin/init)
that's been unreferenced since _just_ after the system booted. We also
have an unmapped page cache page of a file often used at runtime, say
one from /etc/resolv.conf or /etc/passwd.
Which page will be preferred for eviction with this patch set?
-- Dave
--
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