On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 02:14:51PM -0600, Dave Sherohman wrote: > But you already answered the question... If a page looks unlikely > to be used in the near future and there's spare CPU and I/O bandwidth > available, there's no reason not to swap it to cache. If it's needed, > the cost of restoring it from cached swap is approximately 0 (potentially > on the order of only a few CPU cycles, depending on how this is organized) > and if there's something better to do with the memory, the cache can be > flushed similarly quickly. Yeah, I kind of realized that as I was typing the message. 8^) You know how it work...once you're forced to try and explain something, you work out the bits and pieces that you didn't totally understand before. I guess I was just too lazy to continue to try and dump my stream of consiousness kernel ramblings any more. noah -- _______________________________________________________ | Web: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/ | PGP Public Key: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/mail.html
Attachment:
pgpTetfHQkhNC.pgp
Description: PGP signature