On 2/26/08, Mulyadi Santosa <mulyadi.santosa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 6:14 PM, shyam burkule <shyam.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am here not unserstanding , why this algorithm directly add
> new page to active list , eventhough that page has first access ?
I offer you my point of view. If it goes to inactive list, then it is
faster to get reclaimed later, right? In other word, now it is faulted
in...then maybe secs later (under high VM pressure), swapped out
again. If it goes to active list straight, then it will "live" longer
in RAM.
Yes , your right. But why , this logic is only applied to fault pages ? If they are really really going to refer again , then later (on second reference ) they may get moved to active list .(assuming they are moved to inactive list).
regards,
Mulyadi.
