>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> >
> > To clarify this one a bit:
> > shrink_cache is thought to do what it says, it is given a number
of
> > pages it should somehow manage to free by shrinking the cache.
What my
> > patch does is go after the _whole_ list to fulfill that.
>
> I would suggest a slight modification: make "max_mapped" grow as the
> priority goes up.
>
> Right now max_mapped is fixed at "nr_pages*10".
>
> You could have something like
>
> max_mapped = nr_pages * 60 / priority;
>
> instead, which might also alleviate the problem with not even
bothering to
> scan much of the inactive list simply because 99% of all pages are
mapped.
>
> That way you don't waste time on looking at the rest of the inactive
list
> until you _need_ to.
Ok. I re-checked the code and found out this approach cannot stand.
the list scan _is_ already exited early when priority is low:
int max_scan = nr_inactive_pages / priority;
while (--max_scan >= 0 && (entry = inactive_list.prev) !=
&inactive_list) {
It will not make big sense to do it again in max_mapped.
On the other hand I am also very sure, that refining:
if (max_mapped==0)
swap_out(priority, gfp_mask, classzone);
return nr_pages;
in the end to:
if (max_mapped==0 && nr_pages>0)
swap_out(priority, gfp_mask, classzone);
return nr_pages;
is a good thing. We don't need swap_out if we gained all the pages
requested, no matter if we _could_ do it or not.
Is there some performance difference in this approach, Lorenzo? I
guess it should.
Regards,
Stephan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:17 EST