On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 02:59:49PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > Unfortunately you seem to ignore my arguments, so lets
> > I've not ignored them, as said they were either obviously wrong of offtopic.
>
> Would the two of you ajourn this debate to alt.f
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 02:59:49PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Unfortunately you seem to ignore my arguments, so lets
> I've not ignored them, as said they were either obviously wrong of offtopic.
Would the two of you ajourn this debate to alt.flame
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 02:59:49PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Unfortunately you seem to ignore my arguments, so lets
>
> I've not ignored them, as said they were either obviously wrong
> of offtopic.
Without giving any arguments ;)
Rik
--
Hollyw
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 02:59:49PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Unfortunately you seem to ignore my arguments, so lets
I've not ignored them, as said they were either obviously wrong of offtopic.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a me
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> This is totally offtopic. We were _not_ talking about other
> algorithms. We were _only_ talking about _when_ the 1 bit of
> aging I introduced with my algorithm improves performance at
> max. My answer is that the max performance improvement happen
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 02:23:53PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > The dcache aging is mostly useful with _high_ VFS load like
> > updatedb in background. The logic is the same of the VM aging
> > (ask yourself when the VM aging is most useful: when there's
> > high VM load, like a `cp /dev/zero .`
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 01:00:28PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Other tasks tend not to stress the dcache like updatedb does,
> ^
> > leading to the effect that updatedb can "flush out" the other
> > cached v
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 01:00:28PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Other tasks tend not to stress the dcache like updatedb does,
^
> leading to the effect that updatedb can "flush out" the other
> cached values faster than the other processes reference them.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:09:01PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Ever heard of slocate / updatedb ?
>
> ever heard of somebody killing all other tasks while updatedb is
> running?
Other tasks tend not to stress the dcache like updatedb does,
leading
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 09:09:01PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Ever heard of slocate / updatedb ?
ever heard of somebody killing all other tasks while updatedb is running?
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECT
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:47:39PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Not really. Under very high VFS loads we'd just scan
> > through the list twice and free the entries anyway.
>
> You're obviously wrong.
>
> The higher was the load, the faster your wo
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 05:47:39PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Not really. Under very high VFS loads we'd just scan
> through the list twice and free the entries anyway.
You're obviously wrong.
The higher was the load, the faster your working set was getting dropped from
the dcache. (with the p
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:59:16PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > I know this probably isn't of any help under very low
> > and very high loads, but it should provide a nice
> > improvement under medium loads...
>
> It should provide an improvement un
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 04:59:16PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
> I know this probably isn't of any help under very low
> and very high loads, but it should provide a nice
> improvement under medium loads...
It should provide an improvement under high VFS load (lots of files lookedup
and not kept r
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > I rediffed this trivial patch by Andrea (that went
> > into 2.2.19-pre5) which adds 2nd chance replacement
> > to the dentry cache, this should make our dcache
> > behave a little bit better than the curre
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> I rediffed this trivial patch by Andrea (that went
> into 2.2.19-pre5) which adds 2nd chance replacement
> to the dentry cache, this should make our dcache
> behave a little bit better than the current FIFO.
Looks ok, but I'd be happier if the
Hi,
I rediffed this trivial patch by Andrea (that went
into 2.2.19-pre5) which adds 2nd chance replacement
to the dentry cache, this should make our dcache
behave a little bit better than the current FIFO.
I know this probably isn't of any help under very low
and very high loads, but it should p
17 matches
Mail list logo
