From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:22:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: RFC: design for new VM 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: Rik van Riel Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu List-ID: On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > > The lists are not at all dependant on where the pages come > from. The lists are dependant on the *page age*. This almost > sounds like you didn't read my mail... ;( I did read the email. And I understand that. And that's exactly why I think a single-list is equivalent (because your lists basically act simply as "caches" of the page age). > NO. We need different queues so waiting for pages to be flushed > to disk doesn't screw up page aging of the other pages (the ones > we absolutely do not want to evict from memory yet). Ehh.. Did you read _my_ mail? Go back. Read it. Realize that your "multiple queues" is nothing more than "cached information". They do not change _behaviour_ at all. They only change the amount of CPU-time you need to parse it. Your arguments do not seem to address this issue at all. In my mailbox I have an email from you as of yesterday (or the day before) which says: - I will not try to balance the current MM because it is not doable And I don't see that your suggestion is fundamentally adding anything but a CPU timesaver. Basically, answer me this _simple_ question: what _behavioural_ differences do you claim multiple queues have? Ignore CPU usage for now. I'm claiming they are just a cache. And you claim that the current MM cannot be balanced, but your new one can. Please reconcile these two things for me. Linus -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/