From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:32:11 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [PATCH] modified segq for 2.5 Message-ID: <20020909233211.GI18800@holomorphy.com> References: <20020909224928.GH18800@holomorphy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Andrew Morton , sfkaplan@cs.amherst.edu, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Ideally some distinction would be nice, even if only to distinguish I/O >> demanded to be done directly by the workload from background writeback >> and/or readahead. On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 07:54:29PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > OK, are we talking about page replacement or does queue scanning > have priority over the quality of page replacement ? ;) This is relatively tangential. The concern expressed has more to do with VM writeback starving workload-issued I/O than page replacement. Cheers, Bill -- 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/