[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal
From: |
Thomas Bushnell BSG |
Subject: |
Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal |
Date: |
17 Aug 2004 01:48:05 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 |
"Neal H. Walfield" <neal@cs.uml.edu> writes:
> If you didn't have this eviction strategy in mind for draining the
> mapping cache, I am curious what you were going to do. It seems to me
> that anything else would be in far greater contention with the
> kernel's eviction strategy. This is my analysis from the I sent on
> the 16th entitled "Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal:"
Nothing is necessary. You simply de-map, with vm_unmap. Doing so
does not cause the page to be paged out by the kernel, and has
nothing whatsoever to do with the kernel's pageout strategy. Unlike
paging, vm_map and vm_unmap are purely local operations where no
global optimization is relevant, so there is no reason to prefer
kernel control over them.
So I would simply advocate a straightforward LRU of such things, with
a reference count for the number of users of a mapping.
The reference count, incidentally, you still need for your version,
don't you?
If you drop mappings whenever the kernel evicts a page, what do you do
for pageouts of currently active pages? How do you distinguish this
from a pageout of an idle page?
Thomas
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, (continued)
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Ognyan Kulev, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/16
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/16
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal,
Thomas Bushnell BSG <=
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Neal H. Walfield, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17
- Re: Review of Thomas's >2GB ext2fs proposal, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2004/08/17