Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262963AbUFFHAr (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2004 03:00:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262972AbUFFHAr (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2004 03:00:47 -0400 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:3200 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262963AbUFFHAq (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2004 03:00:46 -0400 Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2004 08:08:25 +0100 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200406060708.i5678PW4000272@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> To: Rik van Riel , =?UTF-8?B?TGFzc2UgS8Okcmtrw6RpbmVuIC8gVHJvbmlj?= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: Some thoughts about cache and swap Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 981 Lines: 25 Quote from Rik van Riel : > On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, [UTF-8] Lasse K=C3=A4rkk=C3=A4inen / Tronic wrote: > > > In order to make better use of the limited cache space, the following > > methods could be used: > > [snip magic piled on more magic] > > I wonder if we should just bite the bullet and implement > LIRS, ARC or CART for Linux. These replacement algorithms > should pretty much detect by themselves which pages are > being used again (within a reasonable time) and which pages > aren't. Is the current system really bad enough to make it worthwhile, though? Is there really much performance to be gained from tuning the 'limited' cache space, or will it just hurt as many or more systems than it helps? John. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/