From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:38:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:38:14 -0400 Received: from to-velocet.redhat.com ([216.138.202.10]:48886 "EHLO touchme.toronto.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:38:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:42:30 -0400 From: Benjamin LaHaise To: Andrew Morton Cc: Daniel Phillips , Christian Ehrhardt , lkml , "linux-mm@kvack.org" Subject: Re: MM patches against 2.5.31 Message-ID: <20020826234230.B21820@redhat.com> References: <3D644C70.6D100EA5@zip.com.au> <20020826200048.3952.qmail@thales.mathematik.uni-ulm.de> <3D6A9E4D.DBCC5D0A@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3D6A9E4D.DBCC5D0A@zip.com.au>; from akpm@zip.com.au on Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 02:31:57PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 02:31:57PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > I like the magical-removal-just-before-free, and my gut feel is that > it'll provide a cleaner end result. For the record, I'd rather see explicite removal everwhere. We received a number of complaints along the lines of "I run my app immediately after system startup, and it's fast, but the second time it's slower" due to the lazy page reclaim in early 2.4. Until there's a way to make LRU scanning faster than page allocation, it can't be lazy. -ben