From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: 2.4.8-pre1 and dbench -20% throughput Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 23:20:21 +0200 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01072923202100.01194@starship> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins , Rik van Riel Cc: Linus Torvalds , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Mike Galbraith , Steven Cole , Roger Larsson List-ID: On Sunday 29 July 2001 22:44, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > Actually, I liked the fact that we could change the policy > > of up and down aging of pages in one place instead of having > > to edit the source in multiple places... > > No question, that was a good principle; but in practice there were or > are very few places where they were used, yet far too many variants > provided, some with awkward side-effects on the lists. > > I've no objection to one age_page_up() and one age_page_down() > (though I do find the term "age" unhelpful here), inline or macro, > but even so a lot seems to depend on where and when we initialize it. "Age" is hugely misleading, I think everybody agrees, but we are still in a stable series, and a global name change would just make it harder to apply patches. That said, I think BSD uses "weight". It's not a lot better, but at least you know that the more heaviliy weighted page is one with the higher weight value, whereas we have "age up" meaning "make younger" :-/ And how can age go up and down anyway? I'd prefer to talk about ->temperature, more in line with what we see in the literature. But then, it's so easy to talk about "aging", what would it be with ->temperature: Heating? Cooling? Stirring? ;-) -- 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-mm.org/