3 ms·

Yes I meant that XP had the problem, and that Win7 tried to remedy it. You are overlooking that the read-only part of the working set can be released immediate

Yes I meant that XP had the problem, and that Win7 tried to remedy it. You are overlooking that the read-only part of the working set can be released immediately once another process needs those pages -- just zero them and add them to the free list. Only the dirty pages need to get written out to disk. Anyway, it would actually be simple to test the effectiveness of the working set cap by writing a program that allocs and dirties memory aggressively, and then running it either in normal low priority or background modes, to see how it affects overall system behavior when running in each mode.

brucedawson 3y ago
My test program already proves that if you alloc-and-dirty memory aggressively then in background mode you will consume much more CPU time. If your metric is "interfering with foreground processes" then this is fine, but I think the slowdown is severe enough to matter. As for saving memory, I see your point, but I still don't see how the cap would be better than per-second trimming. If the clean-then-zeroed page is not touched again by the background process then either method would make it available. If the clean-then-zeroed page is touched again by the background process then the whole process of removing it from the working set, zeroing it, then reading it back in and faulting back in is a waste of time. So, again, I'm struggling to find a scenario where the cap is more effective than once-per-second trimming.