From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from max.fys.ruu.nl (max.fys.ruu.nl [131.211.32.73]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA10886 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:34:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 15:53:29 +0100 (MET) From: Rik van Riel Reply-To: H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl Subject: Re: Ideas for memory management hackers. In-Reply-To: <348D3B36.673BEE82@nospam.isltd.insignia.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Stephen Thomas Cc: linux-mm List-ID: On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Stephen Thomas wrote: > Should vhand have any effect on memory utilisation figures, > as reported by /proc/meminfo? If so, then vhand did not seem > to be achieving much, for all its hard work ... I have integrated mmap aging in kswapd, without the need for vhand, in 2.1.71 (experimental). As ppp isn't working in 2.1.71 I'm back to 2.1.66 now, but I have seen kswapd use over 10% of CPU for short times now :( But it doesn't have the disadvantage of having to scan constantly, and it seemed to work better than vhand (it seems that page->accessed isn't updated automatically, and has to be done via pte->flags in the page-table scanning done by kswapd... This would vhand have a fundamental design flaw, which would explain why some people saw a boost in performance, while others saw performance worsen... I think I'll send it to Linus (together with Zlatko's big-order hack) as a bug-fix (we're on feature-freeze after all:) for inclusion in 2.1.72... opinions please, Rik. -- Send Linux memory-management wishes to me: I'm currently looking for something to hack...