[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090508032315.GA19186@ub>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 05:23:20 +0200
From: "Andries E. Brouwer" <Andries.Brouwer@....nl>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: "Andries E. Brouwer" <Andries.Brouwer@....nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: madvise failure
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:07:45AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> "Andries E. Brouwer" <Andries.Brouwer@....nl> wrote:
>
>> In an application something like
>> p = mmap(0, sz, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE, fd, 0);
>> madvise(p, sz, MADV_SEQUENTIAL);
>> is done for a small number of files, each with a size of a few GB.
>> A single sequential pass is done over these files - essentially a merge.
>>
>> On an old machine the madvise is useful, and decreases total time.
> With the same kernel (Ubuntu/2.6.27) ? old one ?
Both Ubuntu/2.6.27: 2.6.27-11-generic (new) vs 2.6.27-11-server (old)
>> But on a more recent machine, with more memory, the madvise makes
>> things worse. There, it seems better not to reveal to the kernel
>> that the data will be read sequentially.
>>
>> Timing (six files of 4GB each, quadcore Intel Q9550, 16GB memory,
>> kernel 2.6.27 [Ubuntu], two other processes active):
>> with madvise, 7 runs: real time varying 9m10s - 37m29s,
>> without madvise, 6 runs: real time fairly constant 5m45s - 5m54s.
> Accessing each page one by one sequentially ?
Yes. Essentially a merge.
> or Sequential but (may) skip some pages in each access ?
No.
Andries
--
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