On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:34:43PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 15:48 -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > Currently, scan pressure between the anon and file LRU lists is > > balanced based on a mixture of reclaim efficiency and a somewhat > > vague > > notion of "value" of having certain pages in memory over others. That > > concept of value is problematic, because it has caused us to count > > any > > event that remotely makes one LRU list more or less preferrable for > > reclaim, even when these events are not directly comparable to each > > other and impose very different costs on the system - such as a > > referenced file page that we still deactivate and a referenced > > anonymous page that we actually rotate back to the head of the list. > > > > Well, patches 7-10 answered my question on patch 6 :) > > I like this design.
Great! Thanks for reviewing.
