From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 21:26:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: process selection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "Benjamin C.R. LaHaise" Cc: Kanoj Sarcar , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Benjamin C.R. LaHaise wrote: > I'm starting to think that going back and benchmarking my vm > patches against 2.1.47 or 66 might prove useful as they used a > physical page scanning with the old LFU technique, I don't think this will be worth the effort. Firstly, physical scanning is disastrous for effective I/O clustering (once we hit swap, disk seek is _far_ more important than CPU time) and LFU just isn't as good as LRU. If you want a real improvement, you should port over some of the (very nice) FreeBSD algorithms for I/O clustering and assorted stuff. As for including the sleep time in VMA selection. I think we should just give an added 'bonus' if the process to which the VMA belongs has been sleeping for a long time. If it's been sleeping for a very long time (> 15 minutes) and the VMA is not shared, we might even consider swapping the whole thing out in one (physically contiguous for easy reading) swoop. regards, Rik -- Open Source: you deserve to be in control of your data. +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Le Reseau netwerksystemen BV: http://www.reseau.nl/ | | Linux Memory Management site: http://www.linux.eu.org/Linux-MM/ | | Nederlandse Linux documentatie: http://www.nl.linux.org/ | +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm my@address' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/