[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f11576a0807202053m858ef54r68e9ba637801e9e0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:53:23 +0900
From: "KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@...urebad.de>,
"Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] mm: more likely reclaim MADV_SEQUENTIAL mappings
Hi Andrew,
>> in my experience,
>> - page_referenced_one is performance critical point.
>> you should test some benchmark.
>> - its patch improved mmaped-copy performance about 5%.
>> (Of cource, you should test in current -mm. MM code was changed widely)
>>
>> So, I'm looking for your test result :)
>
> The change seems logical and I queued it for 2.6.28.
Great.
> But yes, testing for what-does-this-improve is good and useful, but so
> is testing for what-does-this-worsen. How do we do that in this case?
In general, page_referenced_one is important for reclaim throuput.
if crap page_referenced_one changing happend,
system reclaim throuput become slow down.
Of cource, I don't think this patch cause performance regression :-)
So, any benchmark with memcgroup memory restriction is good choice.
btw:
maybe, I will able to post mamped-copy improve mesurement of Johannes's patch
after OLS.
--
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