[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090224160103.df238662.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:01:03 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, penberg@...helsinki.fi, riel@...hat.com,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
hannes@...xchg.org, npiggin@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ming.m.lin@...el.com, yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/20] Get rid of the concept of hot/cold page freeing
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:51:26 +0000
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> > > Almost the opposite with steady improvements almost all the way through.
> > >
> > > With the patch applied, we are still using hot/cold information on the
> > > allocation side so I'm somewhat surprised the patch even makes much of a
> > > difference. I'd have expected the pages being freed to be mostly hot.
> >
> > Oh yeah. Back in the ancient days, hot-cold-pages was using separate
> > magazines for hot and cold pages. Then Christoph went and mucked with
> > it, using a single queue. That might have affected things.
> >
>
> It might have. The impact is that requests for cold pages can get hot pages
> if there are not enough cold pages in the queue so readahead could prevent
> an active process getting cache hot pages. I don't think that would have
> showed up in the microbenchmark though.
We switched to doing non-temporal stores in copy_from_user(), didn't
we? That would rub out the benefit which that microbenchmark
demonstrated?
--
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