> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 July 2001 08:33, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > Now I'm not sure why directly adding swapcache pages to the inactive
> > > dirty lits with 0 zero age improves things.
> >
> > Because it moves the page rapidly down the inactive queue towards the
> > ->writepage instead of leaving it floating around on the active ring
> > waiting to be noticed. We already know we want to evict that page,
>
> We don't.
Agreed. The kinds of ``aging'' don't match up so we can't tell if
it meets our usual criteria for aging.
> The page gets unmapped and added to the swap cache the first
> time it wasn't referenced by the process.
>
> This is before any page aging is done.
Actually there has been aging done. Unless you completely disable
testing for pte_young. It is a different kind of aging but it is
aging.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/