Re: RFC: design for new VM

From: Linus Torvalds (
Date: Thu Aug 03 2000 - 15:22:26 EST

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)
which says:
 - 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
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST