From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:40:21 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] clockpro-clockpro.patch Message-ID: <20051231224021.GA5184@dmt.cnet> References: <20051230223952.765.21096.sendpatchset@twins.localnet> <20051230224312.765.58575.sendpatchset@twins.localnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051230224312.765.58575.sendpatchset@twins.localnet> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Wu Fengguang , Nick Piggin , Marijn Meijles , Rik van Riel List-ID: On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > From: Peter Zijlstra Peter, I tried your "scan-shared.c" proggy which loops over 140M of a file using mmap (on a 128MB box). The number of loops was configured to "5". The amount of major/minor pagefaults was exactly the same between vanilla and clockpro, isnt the clockpro algorithm supposed to be superior than LRU in such "sequential scan of MEMSIZE+1" cases? Oh well, to be sincere, I still haven't understood what makes CLOCK-Pro use inter reference distance instead of recency, given that its a simple CLOCK using reference bits (but with three clocks instead of one). But thats probably just my ignorance, need to study more. -- 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