From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261561AbTHZRsJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:48:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262116AbTHZRq4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:46:56 -0400 Received: from adsl-63-194-239-202.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net ([63.194.239.202]:12047 "EHLO mmp-linux.matchmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261413AbTHZRqt (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:46:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:46:46 -0700 From: Mike Fedyk To: "Ihar 'Philips' Filipau" Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Takao Indoh Subject: Re: cache limit Message-ID: <20030826174646.GF16831@matchmail.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ihar 'Philips' Filipau , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Takao Indoh References: <3F4B3352.4000703@softhome.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F4B3352.4000703@softhome.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:15:46PM +0200, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote: > If I have 1GB of memory and my applications for use only 16MB - it > doesn't mean I want to fill 1GB-16MB with garbage like file my momy had > viewed two weeks ago. > > That's it: OS should scale for *application* *needs*. > > Can you compare in your mind overhead of managing 1GB of cache with > managing e.g. 16MB of cache? > Ok, let's benchmark it. Yes, I can see the logic in your argument, but at this point, numbers are needed to see if or how much of a win this might be.