From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from Galois.suse.de (Galois.suse.de [195.125.217.193]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA13261 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:02:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 19:57:54 +0100 Message-Id: <199802261857.TAA13144@boole.fs100.suse.de> From: "Dr. Werner Fink" In-reply-to: (message from Rik van Riel on Thu, 26 Feb 1998 12:34:40 +0100 (MET)) Subject: Re: Fairness in love and swapping Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl Cc: sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk, torvalds@transmeta.com, nahshon@actcom.co.il, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, paubert@iram.es, mingo@chiara.csoma.elte.hu, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > > > There is one point more which makes ageing a bit unfair. In > > include/linux/pagemap.h PAGE_AGE_VALUE is defined to 16 which is used in > > __add_page_to_hash_queue() to set the age of a hashed page ... IMHO only > > touch_page() should be used. Nevertheless a static value of 16 > > breaks the dynamic manner of swap control via /proc/sys/vm/swapctl > > Without my mmap-age patch, page cache pages aren't aged > at all... They're just freed whenever they weren't referenced > since the last scan. The PAGE_AGE_VALUE is quite useless IMO > (but I could be wrong, Stephen?). The age of a page cache page isn't changed if a process took it (?). IMHO that means that this age is the starting age of such a process page, isn't it? Maybe it would be a win if the initial page age, the increase and decrease amount for the page age depends on the priority or the amount of the time slice of the owner process(es). Werner