On 2/28/08, Mulyadi Santosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi... > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:02 PM, shyam burkule <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Yes , your right. But why , this logic is only applied to fault pages ? > > because in the case of hard page fault, disk access is considered > expensive and should be avoided as many as possible. > > > 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). > > at that time, and assuming VM pressure is quite high...it would be too > late (reclaimed first instead of moved into active list).
If this reasoning still can't convince you, i suggest to wait for > answers from people like Rik van riel... yes , i still not agree...... because we cant say anything about access patern... regards, > > Mulyadi. >
