this sounds like a fine idea.  I'll put it in as part of the
UBC performance work if no one beats me to it.

-Chuck


On Sat, Nov 27, 1999 at 03:49:56PM -0500, Charles M. Hannum wrote:
> 
> While looking at something unrelated, I noticed that pmap_prefer() is
> rather simplistic -- that is, it always tries to match
> offset%cache_size with address%cache_size.
> 
> The problem I see with this is that shared objects will always get
> mapped at an address that causes them to start at the beginning of the
> cache.  Thus, the beginning of the cache will tend to get hit much
> more heavily than the rest.
> 
> Would it not make more sense to rotate this, perhaps based on the
> inode number (which is persisent) or even the object pointer in core
> (which is at least persistent over the lifetime of multiple mappings)?