Re: VM working much better in 2.4.8 than before
Daniel Phillips (email@example.com)
Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:03:51 +0200
On August 13, 2001 05:52 pm, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Yes, those would be the expected effects of use-once, in fact it was
> > > "morning after updatedb" question that got me started on it.
> > updatedb is also absolutely fine if you just work with the existing VM
> > and up the inode pressure a little. I'm still very unconvinced by
> > use-once.
> Use-once has a number of theoretical disadvantages too:
> 1) newly read in pages are evicted earlier, this means
> readahead pages will either evict each other or the
> amount of readahead done might need to be shrunk
> -- the current readahead code is not prepared for this,
> use-once could lead to more disk seeks being done
Have you actually seen this happening?
> 2) since we add new pages to the inactive list, VM
> balancing is faced with a really strange situation ;)
> Yes, these things are solvable, but not without redesigning
> major parts of the VM balancing to do things which have never
> been done before. I'm not sure 2.4 is the time to do that.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/