On 2/28/08, Mulyadi Santosa <mulyadi.santosa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi...
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 6:02 PM, shyam burkule <shyam.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yes , your right. But why , this logic is only applied to fault pages ?
because in the case of hard page fault, disk access is considered
expensive and should be avoided as many as possible.
> 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).
at that time, and assuming VM pressure is quite high...it would be too
late (reclaimed first instead of moved into active list).
If this reasoning still can't convince you, i suggest to wait for
answers from people like Rik van riel...
yes , i still not agree...... because we cant say anything about access patern...
regards,
Mulyadi.
