From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: inactive_dirty list Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 23:21:43 +0200 References: <3D7930D6.F658E5B9@zip.com.au> <3D793B9E.AAAC36CA@zip.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3D793B9E.AAAC36CA@zip.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Saturday 07 September 2002 01:34, Andrew Morton wrote: > You're proposing that we get that IO underway sooner if there > is page reclaim pressure, and that one way to do that is to > write one page for every reclaimed one. Guess that makes > sense as much as anything else ;) Not really. The correct formula will incorporate the allocation rate and the inactive dirty/clean balance. The reclaim rate is not relevant, it is a time-delayed consequence of the above. Relying on it in a control loop is simply asking for oscillation. -- 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/