From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263410AbTDGMVV (for ); Mon, 7 Apr 2003 08:21:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263411AbTDGMVU (for ); Mon, 7 Apr 2003 08:21:20 -0400 Received: from ns.tasking.nl ([195.193.207.2]:60681 "EHLO ns.tasking.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263410AbTDGMVT (for ); Mon, 7 Apr 2003 08:21:19 -0400 Message-ID: <3E916FDA.8070809@netscape.net> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 14:32:26 +0200 From: David Zaffiro User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021220 Debian/1.2.1-3 X-Accept-Language: nl, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Schlichter CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: An idea for prefetching swapped memory... References: <200304071026.47557.schlicht@uni-mannheim.de> In-Reply-To: <200304071026.47557.schlicht@uni-mannheim.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > The idea was about prefetching swapped out pages when some memory is free, the > CPU is idle and the I/O load is low. > > So this should not 'cost' much but behave better on following situation: > (I think there are even more such situations, this one should just be an > example) Wouldn't it cost almost twice as much when the user requests a different task, instead of the just swaped-in "last swaped-out task(s)"?! Instead of loading this directly into a free portion of phys. memory, the just-swapped-in-ex-swapped-out task(s) would need to be swapped-out *again* in favour of the to-be-swaped-in task... Or am I wrong here?