Re: [patch] vmfixes-2.4.0-test9-B2 - fixing deadlocks

[Rik van Riel]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 07:06:57PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > Good.  One of the problems we always had in the past, though, was that
> > getting the relative aging of cache vs. vmas was easy if you had a
> > small set of test loads, but it was really, really hard to find a
> > balance that didn't show pathological behaviour in the worst cases.
> 
> Yep, that's not trivial.

It is. Just do physical-page based aging (so you age all the
pages in the system the same) and the problem is solved.

> > > I may be overlooking something but where do you notice when a page
> > > gets unmapped from the last mapping and put it back into a place
> > > that can be reached from shrink_mmap (or whatever the cache recycler is)?
> > 
> > It doesn't --- that is part of the design.  The vm scanner propagates
> 
> And that's the inferior part of the design IMHO.

Indeed, but physical page based aging is a definate
2.5 thing ... ;(

regards,

Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
       -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

http://www.conectiva.com/               http://www.surriel.com/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/