From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:35:47 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.4-rc2-mm1: vm-split-active-lists Message-ID: <20040312193547.GD18799@mail.shareable.org> References: <4051D39D.80207@cyberone.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4051D39D.80207@cyberone.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mfedyk@matchmail.com, m.c.p@wolk-project.de, owner-linux-mm@kvack.org, plate@gmx.tm List-ID: Nick Piggin wrote: > In Linux, all reclaim is driven by a memory shortage. Often it > is just because more memory is being requested for more file > cache. Is reclaim the same as swapping, though? I'd expect pages to be written to the swapfile speculatively, before they are needed for reclaim. Is that one of those behaviours which everyone agrees is sensible, but it's yet to be implemented in the 2.6 VM? > But presumably if you are running into memory pressure, you really > will need to free those free list pages, requiring the page to be > read from disk when it is used again. The idea is that you write pages to swap _before_ the memory pressure arrives, which makes those pages available immediately when memory pressure does arrive, provided they are still clean. It's speculative. I thought Linux did this already, but I don't know the current VM well. -- Jamie -- 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/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org