Re: Improvement on memory subsystem

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1271 bytes --]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:18:44 BST, Ian Stirling said:

> To paraphrase shakespear - all the world is not a P4 - and all the swap 
> devices are not hard disks.

Been there, done that.  I used to admin a net of Sun 3/50s where /dev/swap
was a symlink to a file on an NFS server, because the "shoebox" local hard
drives for those were so slow that throwing it across the ethernet to a
3/280 with Fujitsu Super-Eagles was faster...

> For example - I've got a 486/33 laptop with 12M RAM that I sometimes use 
> , with swapping to a 128M PCMCIA RAM card that I got from somewhere.

If we go to the effort of writing code that tries to be smart about grouping
swap reads/writes by cost, it's easy enough to flag any sort of ram-disk device
as a 'zero seek time' device.  Remember that I suggested making it dependent
on "how long until the next pass of the elevator" - for a ramdisk that basically
is zero, so the algorithm easily degenerates into "just queue the requests in
expected order you'll need the results".

> 20K instructions wasted on a device with no seek time is just annoying.

On the other hand, how long does it take to move a 4K page across the
PCMCIA interface?  If you're seeing deep queues on it, you may *still*
want to optimize the order of requests...


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]