From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:32:13 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.2.17pre7 VM enhancement Re: I/O performance on 2.4.0-test2 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: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Marcelo Tosatti , Jens Axboe , Alan Cox , Derek Martin , Linux Kernel , linux-mm@kvack.org, "David S. Miller" List-ID: On Sun, 9 Jul 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > > >> So basically we'll have these completly different lists: > >> > >> lru_swap_cache > >> lru_cache > >> lru_mapped > >> > >> The three caches have completly different importance that is implicit by > >> the semantics of the memory they are queuing. > > > >I think this is entirely the wrong way to be thinking about the > >problem. It seems to me to be much more important that we know: > > Think what happens if we shrink lru_mapped first. That would be > an obviously wrong behaviour and this proof we have to consider > a priority between lists. No. You just wrote down the strongest argument in favour of one unified queue for all types of memory usage. (insert QED here) regards, Rik -- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength. Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ -- 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/