From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 00:20:09 +0100 Message-Id: <199802262320.AAA21643@boole.fs100.suse.de> From: "Dr. Werner Fink" In-reply-to: <199802262236.WAA03891@dax.dcs.ed.ac.uk> (sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk) Subject: Re: Fairness in love and swapping Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk Cc: R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl, torvalds@transmeta.com, blah@kvack.org, H.H.vanRiel@fys.ruu.nl, nahshon@actcom.co.il, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, paubert@iram.es, mingo@chiara.csoma.elte.hu, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > >> "swapping" (as opposed to paging) is becoming a required > >> strategy > > > In other words: the pages swapped in or cached into the swap cache > > should get their initial age which its self is calculated out of the > > current priority of the corresponding process? > > No, the idea is that we stop paging one or more processes altogether > and suspend them for a while, flushing their entire resident set out > to disk for the duration. It's something very valuable when you are > running big concurrent batch jobs, and essentially moves the fairness > problem out of the memory space and into the scheduler, where we _can_ > make a reasonable stab at being fair. Ohmm ... yes, but it's a pity because the diagrams of Roger took an old idea of mine back into my mind :) The idea was simply to give a process an advantage over the others within its time slice by simply makeing touch_page(), age_page(), and a new inline intial_age() depending on the amount of the process time slice. Werner