From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3D6B0215.9FDECCAC@zip.com.au> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 21:37:41 -0700 From: Andrew Morton MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: MM patches against 2.5.31 References: <3D644C70.6D100EA5@zip.com.au> <20020826200048.3952.qmail@thales.mathematik.uni-ulm.de> <3D6A9E4D.DBCC5D0A@zip.com.au> <20020826234230.B21820@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: Daniel Phillips , Christian Ehrhardt , lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 02:31:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > I like the magical-removal-just-before-free, and my gut feel is that > > it'll provide a cleaner end result. > > For the record, I'd rather see explicite removal everwhere. We received > a number of complaints along the lines of "I run my app immediately after > system startup, and it's fast, but the second time it's slower" due to > the lazy page reclaim in early 2.4. Until there's a way to make LRU > scanning faster than page allocation, it can't be lazy. > I think that's what Rik was referring to. But here, "explicit removal" refers to running lru_cache_del() prior to the final put_page, rather than within the context of the final put_page. So it's a different thing. -- 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/