From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:12:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:12:49 -0500 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com ([195.223.140.120]:35406 "EHLO penguin.e-mind.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:12:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:12:21 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Rik van Riel Cc: Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] dcache 2nd chance replacement Message-ID: <20010103221221.I32185@athlon.random> In-Reply-To: <20010103204354.E32185@athlon.random> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:47:39PM -0200 X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:47:39PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote: > Not really. Under very high VFS loads we'd just scan > through the list twice and free the entries anyway. You're obviously wrong. The higher was the load, the faster your working set was getting dropped from the dcache. (with the patch the working set will have a chance to remains in cache also with polluting going on instead, that's the whole point of aging: to find out if something is worthwhile to keep in cache or not) So the higher the VFS load definitely the higher improvement you will get. The example with only pollution in the cache doesn't make sense, if you want to optimize that case then remove the dcache in first place since it's only overhead for such case. Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/