On 7/26/06, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
Wouldn't we typically have all free pages > min_free in state U?
Also wouldn't all R/O mapped pages not also be V, all R/W mapped pages
and unmapped page-cache pages P like you state in your paper.
Ahh, ok, I misunderstood. You want to keep the state changes for clean
page cache pages, I assumed that you only want to make pages volatile
if the get on the inactive_clean list and leave them stable if they
are on one of the other two lists.
This patch would just increase the number of V pages with the tail end
of the guest LRU, which are typically the pages you would want to evict
(perhaps even add 5th guest state to indicate that these V pages are
preferable over the others?)
Yes, that would help for architectures that cannot implement the
potential-volatile state.
But isn't it so that for the gross over-commit scenario you outline the
host OS will have to swap out S pages eventually?
My point was that you really have to distinguish between host memory
pressure and guest memory pressure.
--
blue skies,
Martin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
