From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A64EB6B004D for ; Wed, 5 Aug 2009 12:12:53 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dike, Jeffrey G" Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 09:12:39 -0700 Subject: RE: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages? Message-ID: <9EECC02A4CC333418C00A85D21E89326B651C0BD@azsmsx502.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <20090805024058.GA8886@localhost> <4A793B92.9040204@redhat.com> <20090805160504.GD23385@random.random> In-Reply-To: <20090805160504.GD23385@random.random> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andrea Arcangeli , Avi Kivity Cc: "Wu, Fengguang" , Rik van Riel , "Yu, Wilfred" , "Kleen, Andi" , Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , KOSAKI Motohiro , Mel Gorman , LKML , linux-mm List-ID: > It can't distinguish. Besides the pages being refaulted (as minor > faults) implies they weren't collected yet. So the fact they are > allowed to stay on active list or not can't matter or alter the > refaulting issue. Sounds like there's some terminology confusion. A refault is a page being = discarded due to memory pressure and subsequently being faulted back in. I= was counting the number of faults between the discard and faulting back in= for each affected page. For a large number of predominately stack pages, = that number was very small. Jeff -- 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