Hi,

true because putting vnode cache page on the inactive list will keep the
the inactive list so high that pages will never be moved from active to
inactive by io, this also meens the cache wont grow on demand (it only
uses free mem).
To get the right behaviour I think its important to keep it the way it
is and to find a way that lowers the strength of driving processes out
of memory.

lars

Frank van der Linden wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 09:22:06AM -0500, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> > I'm running with your patch on my laptop now and the difference
> > is very noticable.  Now I can actually do something else while
> > doing a `cvs update' or compiling.
>
> That's cool, but: I'd like to see some kind of a benchmark that
> gives comparable numbers. I mean: maybe this change will make
> behavior the same as with the traditional buffer cache again :-)
>
> - Frank