[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200707281411.57823.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:11:57 +0300
From: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: How can we make page replacement smarter (was: swap-prefetch)
Chris Snook wrote:
> Al Boldi wrote:
> > Because it is hard to quantify the expected swap-in speed for random
> > pages, let's first tackle the swap-in of consecutive pages, which should
> > be at least as fast as swap-out. So again, why is swap-in so slow?
>
> If I'm writing 20 pages to swap, I can find a suitable chunk of swap and
> write them all in one place. If I'm reading 20 pages from swap, they
> could be anywhere. Also, writes get buffered at one or more layers of
> hardware.
Ok, this explains swap-in of random pages. Makes sense, but it doesn't
explain the awful tmpfs performance degradation of consecutive read-in runs
from swap, which should have at least stayed constant
> At best, reads can be read-ahead and cached, which is why
> sequential swap-in sucks less. On-demand reads are as expensive as I/O
> can get.
Which means that it should be at least as fast as swap-out, even faster
because write to disk is usually slower than read on modern disks. But
linux currently shows a distinct 2x slowdown for sequential swap-in wrt
swap-out. And to prove this point, just try suspend to disk where you can
see sequential swap-out being reported at about twice the speed of
sequential swap-in on resume. Why is that?
Thanks!
--
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists