From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E34646B004D for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 23:17:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.74]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Fujitsu Gateway) with ESMTP id n773HOfj028978 for (envelope-from kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com); Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:17:24 +0900 Received: from smail (m4 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F5DC2AFD63 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:17:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.94]) by m4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DA645DE60 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:17:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 157B41DB803E for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:17:24 +0900 (JST) Received: from m107.s.css.fujitsu.com (m107.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.249.87.107]) by s4.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05611DB8040 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:17:23 +0900 (JST) From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages? In-Reply-To: <4A7AD5DF.7090801@redhat.com> References: <20090806100824.GO23385@random.random> <4A7AD5DF.7090801@redhat.com> Message-Id: <20090807121443.5BE5.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 12:17:22 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Rik van Riel Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, Andrea Arcangeli , Wu Fengguang , "Dike, Jeffrey G" , "Yu, Wilfred" , "Kleen, Andi" , Avi Kivity , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Mel Gorman , LKML , linux-mm List-ID: > Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > Likely we need a cut-off point, if we detect it takes more than X > > seconds to scan the whole active list, we start ignoring young bits, > > We could just make this depend on the calculated inactive_ratio, > which depends on the size of the list. > > For small systems, it may make sense to make every accessed bit > count, because the working set will often approach the size of > memory. > > On very large systems, the working set may also approach the > size of memory, but the inactive list only contains a small > percentage of the pages, so there is enough space for everything. > > Say, if the inactive_ratio is 3 or less, make the accessed bit > on the active lists count. Sound reasonable. How do we confirm the idea correctness? Wu, your X focus switching benchmark is sufficient test? -- 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