Re: [PATCH 6/9] clockpro-clockpro.patch

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 20:40 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
> Peter,
> I tried your "scan-shared.c" proggy which loops over 140M of a file
> using mmap (on a 128MB box). The number of loops was configured to "5".
> The amount of major/minor pagefaults was exactly the same between
> vanilla and clockpro, isnt the clockpro algorithm supposed to be
> superior than LRU in such "sequential scan of MEMSIZE+1" cases?

yes it should, hmm, have to look at that then.

What should happen is that nr_cold_target should drop to the bare
minimum, which effectivly pins all hot pages and only rotates the few
cold pages.

> Oh well, to be sincere, I still haven't understood what makes CLOCK-Pro
> use inter reference distance instead of recency, given that its a simple
> CLOCK using reference bits (but with three clocks instead of one).
> But thats probably just my ignorance, need to study more.

The reuse distance is in PG_test. Please see the clockpro-documentation
patch, which should explain this. If its still not clear after that let
me know, I'll be more verbose then.

Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux