[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1465266883.16365.154.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 22:34:43 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] mm: base LRU balancing on an explicit cost model
On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is
> balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat
> vague
> notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That
> concept of value is problematic, because it has caused us to count
> any
> event that remotely makes one LRU list more or less preferrable for
> reclaim, even when these events are not directly comparable to each
> other and impose very different costs on the system - such as a
> referenced file page that we still deactivate and a referenced
> anonymous page that we actually rotate back to the head of the list.
>
Well, patches 7-10 answered my question on patch 6 :)
I like this design.
--
All Rights Reversed.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists