Let me convey an aspect of its rightness.
Caches have a declining marginal utility. It is a good idea to keep at least a
little bit of each cache around. The classic problem is when you switch usage
patterns back and forth, and one of the caches has been completely flushed by,
say, a large file read. If just 3% of the amount of cache remained from when it
was being used that 3% might give you a lot of speedup when the usage pattern
flipped back.
Hans
Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> > The new age one 64th of your objects scheme causes pressure to
> > be proportional.....
>
> Which is wrong, unless the oldest pages from each zone happen
> to be the same age ;)
>
> Suppose a 5MB SHM segment gets deattached and not used for a
> long time. In this situation it makes little sense to round-robin
> free from the different caches if the other caches are under more
> pressure.
>
> > I am looking forward to reading the new 2.4 mm code during my
> > next aeroflot experience this sunday....
>
> I'm working on it, but I can't promise to have all of the
> active/inactive/scavenge list framework ready by then ;)
>
> regards,
>
> Rik
> --
> The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network
> of people. That is its real strength.
>
> Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies
> 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 majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 15 2000 - 21:00:14 EST