From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:26:14 -0300 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: Benchmarks to exploit LRU deficiencies Message-ID: <20051010202614.GB15631@logos.cnet> References: <20051010184636.GA15415@logos.cnet> <200510110213.29937.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200510110213.29937.ak@suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, sjiang@lanl.gov, rni@andrew.cmu.edu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, riel@redhat.com List-ID: On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 02:13:29AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Monday 10 October 2005 20:46, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > Hi, > > > > There are a few experimental implementations of advanced replacement > > algorithms being developed and discussed. Unfortunately, there is lack of > > knowledge on how to properly test them. > > I think if you want to really see advantages you should not implement > the advanced algorithms for the page cache, but for the inode/dentry > cache. The major problem I can see is that of page versus icache/dcache "unused" list ordering and fragmentation, which is why we're trying to aim at entire pages. But other than that it works fine AFAIK. > We seem to have far more problems in this area than with the > standard page cache. How's that? -- 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: email@kvack.org