On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:26:01AM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:24:24PM -0800, David Gould wrote:
> >
> > I am skeptical of the argument that we can win by replacing "the least
> > desirable" pages with pages were even less desireable and that we have
> > no
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, David Gould wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:26:01AM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > Also remember that the readahead pages won't actually get mapped into
> > memory, so they can be recycled easily. So, under swapping you tend
> > to find that the extra readin pages
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:45:04PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > One solution could be to put (most of) the swapin readahead
> > pages on the inactive_dirty list, so pressure by readahead
> > on the resident pages is smaller and the not used readahead
> >
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:45:04PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> But only when the extra pages we're reading in don't
> displace useful data from memory, making us fault in
> those other pages ... causing us to go to the disk
> again and do
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 08:53:33AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> >
> > If we're under free memory shortage, "unlucky" readaheads will be harmful.
>
> I know, it's a balancing act. But given that
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:45:04PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> One solution could be to put (most of) the swapin readahead
> pages on the inactive_dirty list, so pressure by readahead
> on the resident pages is smaller and the not used readahead
> pages are reclaimed faster.
Shouldn't they be
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 08:53:33AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> If we're under free memory shortage, "unlucky" readaheads will be harmful.
I know, it's a balancing act. But given that even one successful
readahead per read will halve
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:24:24PM -0800, David Gould wrote:
> >
> > I am skeptical of the argument that we can win by replacing "the least
> > desirable" pages with pages were even less desireable and that we have
> > no recent
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:24:24PM -0800, David Gould wrote:
>
> I am skeptical of the argument that we can win by replacing "the least
> desirable" pages with pages were even less desireable and that we have
> no recent indication of any need for. It seems possible under heavy swap
> to
David Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmm, arguably reading pages we do not want is a mistake. I should think that
> if a big performance win is required to justify a design choice, it should
> be especially required to show such a win for doing something that on its
> face is wrong.
The
David Gould [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmmm, arguably reading pages we do not want is a mistake. I should think that
if a big performance win is required to justify a design choice, it should
be especially required to show such a win for doing something that on its
face is wrong.
The case
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:24:24PM -0800, David Gould wrote:
I am skeptical of the argument that we can win by replacing "the least
desirable" pages with pages were even less desireable and that we have
no recent indication of any need for. It seems possible under heavy swap
to discard
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:24:24PM -0800, David Gould wrote:
I am skeptical of the argument that we can win by replacing "the least
desirable" pages with pages were even less desireable and that we have
no recent indication of any
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 08:53:33AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
If we're under free memory shortage, "unlucky" readaheads will be harmful.
I know, it's a balancing act. But given that even one successful
readahead per read will halve the
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:45:04PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
One solution could be to put (most of) the swapin readahead
pages on the inactive_dirty list, so pressure by readahead
on the resident pages is smaller and the not used readahead
pages are reclaimed faster.
Shouldn't they be on
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 08:53:33AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
If we're under free memory shortage, "unlucky" readaheads will be harmful.
I know, it's a balancing act. But given that even one
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:45:04PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
But only when the extra pages we're reading in don't
displace useful data from memory, making us fault in
those other pages ... causing us to go to the disk
again and do more
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, Ingo Oeser wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 02:45:04PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
One solution could be to put (most of) the swapin readahead
pages on the inactive_dirty list, so pressure by readahead
on the resident pages is smaller and the not used readahead
pages are
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001, David Gould wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:26:01AM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Also remember that the readahead pages won't actually get mapped into
memory, so they can be recycled easily. So, under swapping you tend
to find that the extra readin pages are
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:26:01AM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 04:24:24PM -0800, David Gould wrote:
I am skeptical of the argument that we can win by replacing "the least
desirable" pages with pages were even less desireable and that we have
no recent
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:40:52PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:05:02AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > >
> > > > However, the pages which are contiguous on
Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:05:02AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >
> > > However, the pages which are contiguous on swap are not necessarily
> > > contiguous in the virtual
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:05:02AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > However, the pages which are contiguous on swap are not necessarily
> > contiguous in the virtual memory area where the fault happened. That means
> > the swapin
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:05:02AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> However, the pages which are contiguous on swap are not necessarily
> contiguous in the virtual memory area where the fault happened. That means
> the swapin readahead code may read pages which are not related to the
>
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:05:02AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
However, the pages which are contiguous on swap are not necessarily
contiguous in the virtual memory area where the fault happened. That means
the swapin readahead code may read pages which are not related to the
process
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:05:02AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
However, the pages which are contiguous on swap are not necessarily
contiguous in the virtual memory area where the fault happened. That means
the swapin readahead
Marcelo Tosatti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:05:02AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
However, the pages which are contiguous on swap are not necessarily
contiguous in the virtual memory area where the
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:40:52PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Marcelo Tosatti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:05:02AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
However, the pages which are contiguous on swap are not
Hi,
The current swapin readahead code reads a number of pages (1 >>
page_cluster) which are physically contiguous on disk with reference to
the page which needs to be faulted in.
However, the pages which are contiguous on swap are not necessarily
contiguous in the virtual memory area where
Hi,
The current swapin readahead code reads a number of pages (1
page_cluster) which are physically contiguous on disk with reference to
the page which needs to be faulted in.
However, the pages which are contiguous on swap are not necessarily
contiguous in the virtual memory area where the
30 matches
Mail list logo
