replaced by new patch from ..
Posted Sep 29, 2005 7:08 UTC (Thu) by ncm
In reply to: replaced by new patch from ..
Parent article: Swap prefetching
Would somebody please explain the above comment, comprehensibly?
For my part, I would prefer a much more aggressive prefetcher. Any page that's unused is wasted -- providing it can be reclaimed quickly because there's also a copy somewhere on disk. Similarly, any page of swap that doesn't mirror an otherwise-unbacked page in RAM is wasted, and slows down reclaiming that page for some other use.
Throughput's nice for benchmarks and kernel compiles, but most of us suffer far more from abysmal latency than from marginally-reduced throughput.
to post comments)