Re: [PATCH 00/03] Unmapped: Separate unmapped and mapped pages

["Magnus Damm" <magnus.damm@gmail.com>]

On 3/10/06, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 14:19 +0100, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > My current code just extends this idea which basically means that
> > there is currently no relation between how many pages that sit in each
> > LRU. The LRU with the largest amount of pages will be shrunk/rotated
> > first. And on top of that is the guarantee logic and the
> > reclaim_mapped threshold, ie the unmapped LRU will be shrunk first by
> > default.
>
> that sounds wrong, you lose history this way. There is NO reason to
> shrink only the unmapped LRU and not the mapped one. At minimum you
> always need to pressure both. How you pressure (absolute versus
> percentage) is an interesting question, but to me there is no doubt that
> you always need to pressure both, and "equally" to some measure of equal

Regarding if shrinking the unmapped LRU only is bad or not: In the
vanilla version of refill_inactive_zone(), if reclaim_mapped is false
then mapped pages are rotated on the active list without the
young-bits are getting cleared in the PTE:s. I would say this is very
similar to leaving the pages on the mapped active list alone as long
as reclaim_mapped is false in the dual LRU case. Do you agree?

Also, losing history, do you mean that the order of the pages are not
kept? If so, then I think my refill_inactive_zone() rant above shows
that the order of the pages are not kept today. But yes, keeping the
order is probaly a good idea.

It would be interesting to hear what you mean by "pressure", do you
mean that both the active list and inactive list are scanned?

Many thanks,

/ magnus