[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100611105441.ee657515.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:54:41 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, 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, 10 Jun 2010 17:07:32 -0700
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
Hmm. I'm not fan of estimating working set size by calculation
based on some numbers without considering history or feedback.
Can't we use some kind of feedback algorithm as hi-low-watermark, random walk
or GA (or somehing more smart) to detect the size ?
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