[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709171053040.26860@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Configurable reclaim batch size
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> It increases the lock hold times though. Otoh it might work out with the
> lock placement.
Yeah may be good for NUMA.
> Do you have any numbers that show this is worthwhile?
Tried to run AIM7 but the improvements are in the noise. I need a tests
that really does large memory allocation and stresses the LRU. I could
code something up but then Lee's patch addresses some of the same issues.
Is there any standard test that shows LRU handling regressions?
-
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