Re: mapped pagecache pages vs unmapped pages

[Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>]

2012-04-10 i??i ? 9:49, Rik van Riel i?' e,?:

> On 04/09/2012 08:31 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> 2012-04-10 i??i ? 8:50, Alexey Ivanov i?' e,?:
>>
>>> Did you consider making this ratio tunable, at least manually(i.e.
>>> via sysctl)?
>>> I suppose we are not the only ones with almost-whole-ram-mmaped
>>> workload.
>>
>> Personally, I think it's not good approach.
>> It depends on kernel's internal implemenatation which would be changed
>> in future as we chagend it at 2.6.28.
> 
> I also believe that a tunable for this is not going to be
> a very workable approach, for the simple reason that changing
> the value does not make a predictable change in the effectiveness
> of working set detection or protection.
> 
>> In my opinion, kernel just should do best effort to keep active working
>> set except some critical pages which are code pages.
> 
> Johannes has some experimental code to measure refaults, and
> calculate their distance in a multi-zone, multi-cgroup environment.
> 
> That would allow us to predictably place things in the working set
> as required.
> 


Hannes, it can help many people if you post your code. ;)


-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>