Re: [PATCH] (2/2) reverse mappings for current 2.5.23 VM

Craig Kulesa
2002-06-19T20:09:23Z

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> You might conclude from the above that the lru+rmap is superior to
> aging+rmap: while they show the same wall-clock time, lru+rmap consumes
> considerably less disk bandwidth.

I wouldn't draw _any_ conclusions about either patch yet, because as you
said, it's only one type of load. And it was a single tick in vmstat
where page_launder() was aggressive that made the difference between the
two. In a different test, where I had actually *used* more of the
application pages instead of simply closing most of the applications
(save one, the memory hog), the results are likely to have been very
different.

I think that Rik's right: this simply points out that page_launder(), at
least in its interaction with 2.5, needs some tuning. I think both
approaches look very promising, but each for different reasons.

-Craig