From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <404EA353.7080507@cyberone.com.au> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:10:43 +1100 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] VM split active lists References: <404D56D8.2000008@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: <404D56D8.2000008@cyberone.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: linux-kernel , Linux Memory Management List-ID: Nick Piggin wrote: > > OK, the theory is that mapped pagecache pages are worth more than > unmapped pages. This is a good theory because mapped pages will > usually have far more random access patterns, so pagein *and* pageout > will be much less efficient. Also, applications are probably coded to > be more suited to blocking in read() than a random code / anon memory > page. So a factor of >= 16 wouldn't be out of the question. > Just a followup - there is a small but significant bug in patch #4/4. In shrink_zone, mapped_ratio should be divided by nr_active_unmapped. I have this fixed, hugepage compile problems fixed, and a mapped_page_cost tunable in place of swappiness. So anyone interested in testing should please ask me for my latest patch. I'm getting some preliminary numbers now. They're pretty good, looks like they should be similar to dont-rotate-active-list which isn't too surprising. Interestingly, mapped_page_cost of 8 is close to optimal for swapping-kbuild throughput. Values of 4 and 16 are both worse. mapped_page_cost is in units of unmapped page cost. Maybe it is just me, but I find this scheme is more meaningful and provides more control than swappiness. -- 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: aart@kvack.org