On 2/26/08, Mulyadi Santosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:14 PM, shyam burkule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I am here not unserstanding , why this algorithm directly > add > > new page to active list , eventhough that page has first access ? > > I offer you my point of view. If it goes to inactive list, then it is > faster to get reclaimed later, right? In other word, now it is faulted > in...then maybe secs later (under high VM pressure), swapped out > again. If it goes to active list straight, then it will "live" longer > in RAM.
Yes , your right. But why , this logic is only applied to fault pages ? If they are really really going to refer again , then later (on second reference ) they may get moved to active list .(assuming they are moved to inactive list). regards, > > Mulyadi. >
