Re: [PATCH] Page aging for 2.4.0-test8

2000-09-11 Thread Rik van Riel
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Neil Schemenauer wrote: > On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 01:12:32PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > Your idea /heavily/ penalises libc and executable pages by aging them > > more often than anonymous pages... > > I don't think I age anonymous pages any more than any other type > of p

Re: [PATCH] Page aging for 2.4.0-test8

2000-09-11 Thread Neil Schemenauer
On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 01:12:32PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > Your idea /heavily/ penalises libc and executable pages by aging them > more often than anonymous pages... I don't think I age anonymous pages any more than any other type of page. Perhaps you are saying that shared pages should rec

Re: [PATCH] Page aging for 2.4.0-test8

2000-09-11 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000, Neil Schemenauer wrote: > This patch adds page aging similar to what was in 2.0. Please take a look at http://www.surriel.com/patches/ I've been working on a new VM patch which adds page aging in a somewhat more 'balanced' way. Your idea /heavily/ penalises libc and executa

[PATCH] Page aging for 2.4.0-test8

2000-09-10 Thread Neil Schemenauer
This patch adds page aging similar to what was in 2.0. The patch is quite straight forward but I've had one lockup that I have been unable to reproduce. I don't know if the lockup was caused by my patch or was a test8 bug. This patch is supposed to improve interactive performance, especially du