From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:19:16 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] page-replace-single-batch-insert.patch Message-ID: <20051231221916.GB4024@dmt.cnet> References: <20051230223952.765.21096.sendpatchset@twins.localnet> <20051230224002.765.28812.sendpatchset@twins.localnet> <20051231070320.GA9997@dmt.cnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel Cc: Peter Zijlstra , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Wu Fengguang , Nick Piggin , Marijn Meijles List-ID: On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 09:44:07AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sat, 31 Dec 2005, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > Unification of active and inactive per cpu page lists is a requirement > > for CLOCK-Pro, right? > > You can approximate the functionality through use of scan > rates. Not quite as accurate as a unified clock, though. Rik, I dont understand what you mean. My point is that the page-replacement-policy abstraction patches affect the original behaviour, and they shouldnt. See the post from Peter about abstracting the per-cpu lists. We're talking about different things. -- 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