Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:39:15 +0100 | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: test13-pre5 |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > - global dirty list for global syn(). We don't have one, and I don't > think we want one. We could add a few lists, and split up the active > list into "active" and "active_dirty", for example, but I don't like > the implications that would probably have for the LRU ordering.
This has been the subject of a lot of flam^H^H^H^H discussion on #kernelnewbies about this and it's still an open question. The only way to see if a separate active_dirty hurts or helps is to try it. Later. :-)
I don't see how a separate active_dirty list can hurt LRU ordering. We could still take the pages off the two lists in the same order we did with one list if we wanted to, or at least, statistically the same in turns of number, age, time since entering the list, etc. That better not cause radically different or undesireable behaviour or something is really broken.
By breaking active into two lists we'd get a very interesting tuning parameter to play with: the relative rate at which pages are moved from active to inactive. Beyond that, the active_dirty list could be pressed into service quite easily as a page-oriented version of kflushd, and would obviously be useful as a global sync list.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |