On 04/19/2010 05:44 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
What do people think?
It has potential advantages and disadvantages. On smaller desktop systems, it is entirely possible that the working set is close to half of the page cache. Your patch reduces the amount of memory that is protected on the active file list, so it may cause part of the working set to get evicted. On the other hand, having a smaller active list frees up more memory for sequential (streaming, use-once) disk IO. This can be useful on systems with large IO subsystems and small memory (like Christian's s390 virtual machine, with 256MB RAM and 4 disks!). I wonder if we could not find some automatic way to balance between these two situations, for example by excluding currently-in-flight pages from the calculations. In Christian's case, he could have 160MB of cache (buffer + page cache), of which 70MB is in flight to disk at a time. It may be worthwhile to exclude that 70MB from the total and aim for 45MB active file and 45MB inactive file pages on his system. That way IO does not get starved. On a desktop system, which needs the working set protected and does less IO, we will automatically protect more of the working set - since there is no IO to starve. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>