Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:22:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:22:32 -0500 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:21264 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 17:22:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:21:57 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Hans Reiser Cc: Chris Mason , Andreas Dilger , Shawn Starr , , Subject: Re: Possible Idea with filesystem buffering. In-Reply-To: <3C4DE22D.4090904@namesys.com> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Hans Reiser wrote: > Yes, it should get twice as much pressure, but that does not mean it > should free twice as many pages, it means it should age twice as many > pages, and then the accesses will un-age them. > > Make more sense now? So basically you are saying that each filesystem should implement the code to age all pages equally and react equally to memory pressure ... ... essentially duplicating what the current VM already does! regads, Rik -- "Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS" -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/