From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: Why *not* rmap, anyway? Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 20:38:32 +0200 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rik van Riel , Christian Smith Cc: Joseph A Knapka , "Martin J. Bligh" , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wednesday 24 April 2002 02:46, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Christian Smith wrote: > > > The question becomes, how much work would it be to rip out the Linux MM > > piece-meal, and replace it with an implementation of UVM? > > I doubt we want the Mach pmap layer. > > It should be much easier to reimplement the pageout parts of > the BSD memory management on top of a simpler reverse mapping > system. > > You can get that code at http://surriel.com/patches/ Another aspect of the (Free)BSD mm we probably want to hijack is the process management, i.e., throttling processes selectively (and in some kind of fair rotation) to reduce mm thrashing, which is known to improve throughput in high load situations. -- Daniel -- 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/