* Rene Herman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > and the fact is: updatedb discards a considerable portion of the
> > cache completely unnecessarily: on a reasonably complex box no way
> > do all the inodes and dentries fit into all of RAM, so we just trash
> > everything.
>
> Okay, but unless I've now managed to really quite horribly confuse
> myself, that wouldn't have anything to do with _swap_ prefetch would
> it?
it's connected: it would remove updatedb from the VM picture altogether.
(updatedb would just cycle through the files with leaving minimal cache
disturbance.)
hence swap-prefetch could concentrate on the cases where it makes sense
to start swap prefetching _without_ destroying other, already cached
content: such as when a large app exits and frees gobs of memory back
into the buddy allocator. _That_ would be a definitive "no costs and
side-effects" point for swap-prefetch to kick in, and it would eliminate
this pretty artificial (and unnecessary) 'desktop versus server'
controversy and would turn it into a 'helps everyone' feature.
Ingo
-
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]
