On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> The lists are not at all dependant on where the pages come
> from. The lists are dependant on the *page age*. This almost
> sounds like you didn't read my mail... ;(
I did read the email. And I understand that. And that's exactly why I
think a single-list is equivalent (because your lists basically act simply
as "caches" of the page age).
> NO. We need different queues so waiting for pages to be flushed
> to disk doesn't screw up page aging of the other pages (the ones
> we absolutely do not want to evict from memory yet).
Ehh.. Did you read _my_ mail?
Go back. Read it. Realize that your "multiple queues" is nothing more than
"cached information". They do not change _behaviour_ at all. They only
change the amount of CPU-time you need to parse it.
Your arguments do not seem to address this issue at all.
In my mailbox I have an email from you as of yesterday (or the day before)
- I will not try to balance the current MM because it is not doable
And I don't see that your suggestion is fundamentally adding anything but
a CPU timesaver.
Basically, answer me this _simple_ question: what _behavioural_
differences do you claim multiple queues have? Ignore CPU usage for now.
I'm claiming they are just a cache.
And you claim that the current MM cannot be balanced, but your new one
Please reconcile these two things for me.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST