On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> >[..] If something the higher is the priority the
> >harder we should shrink the cache (that's the opposite that the patch
> >achieves). Usually priority is always zero and the below check has no
> >effect. [..]
>
> thinko, I noticed I was wrong about this, apologies (prio start with 6 and
> 0 is the most severe one).
>
> anyway I keep not enjoying such path for all the other reasons. It should
> at _least_ be done outside the loop before calculating `count`.
True. The only reason this check is inside shrink_mmap() is that we
may want to do the page aging on the LRU pages anyway because of
page replacement reasons. It will be interesting to see if moving
it out of the loop has any adverse effects or not...
cheers,
Rik
-- The Internet is not a network of computers. It is a network of people. That is its real strength.Wanna talk about the kernel? irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:27 EST