From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: Interesting item came up while working on FreeBSD's pageout daemon Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:04:41 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00122900094502.00966@gimli> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Matthew Dillon , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Matthew Dillon wrote: > > > My conclusion from this is that I was wrong before when I thought that > > > clean and dirty pages should be treated the same, and I was also wrong > > > trying to give clean pages 'ultimate' priority over dirty pages, but I > > > think I may be right giving dirty pages two go-arounds in the queue > > > before flushing. Limiting the number of dirty page flushes allowed per > > > pass also works but has unwanted side effects. > > > > Hi, I'm a newcomer to the mm world, but it looks like fun, so I'm > > jumping in. :-) > > > > It looks like what you really want are separate lru lists for > > clean and dirty. That way you can tune the rate at which dirty > > vs clean pages are moved from active to inactive. > > Let me clear up one thing. The whole clean/dirty story > Matthew wrote down only goes for the *inactive* pages, > not for the active ones... Thanks for clearing that up, but it doesn't change the observation - it still looks like he's keeping dirty pages 'on probation' twice as long as before. Having each page take an extra lap the inactive_dirty list isn't exactly equivalent to just scanning the list more slowly, but it's darn close. Is there a fundamental difference? -- Daniel -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/