From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from burns.conectiva (burns.conectiva [10.0.0.4]) by perninha.conectiva.com.br (Postfix) with SMTP id C45E316B54 for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 16:59:51 -0300 (EST) Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:59:51 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: RE: on load control / process swapping In-Reply-To: <200105161754.f4GHsCd73025@earth.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Matt Dillon Cc: Charles Randall , Roger Larsson , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, linux-mm@kvack.org, sfkaplan@cs.amherst.edu List-ID: On Wed, 16 May 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: > :There's one thing "wrong" with the drop-behind idea though; > :it penalises data even when it's still in core and we're > :reading it for the second or third time. > > It's not dropping the data, it's dropping the priority. And yes, it > does penalize the data somewhat. On the otherhand if the data happens > to still be in the cache and you scan it a second time, the page priority > gets bumped up But doesn't it get pushed _down_ again after the process has read the data? Or is this a part of the code outside of vm/* which I haven't read yet? regards, Rik -- Linux MM bugzilla: http://linux-mm.org/bugzilla.shtml Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.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/