On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jason McMullan wrote:
> If we take all the motivations from the above, and list
> them, we get:
>
> * Don't write to the (slow,packeted) devices until
> you need to free up memory for processes.
> * Never cache reads from immediate/fast devices.
> * Keep packetized devices as continuously-idle as possible.
> Small chunks of idleness don't count. You want to have
> maximal stetches of idleness for the device.
> * Keep running processes as fully in memory as possible.
I agree with your modification, and with the obvious 4
points above ...
> * If we're getting low cache hit rates, don't flush
> processes to swap.
> * If we're getting good cache hit rates, flush old, idle
> processes to swap.
... but I fail to see this one. If we get a low cache hit
rate, couldn't that just mean we allocated too little memory
for the cache ?
I am very much interested in continuing this discussion...
Also, how would we translate all these requirements into
VM strategies ?
regards,
Rik
--
Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release:
"we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"
http://www.surriel.com/
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
