[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A09D957.2070908@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:17:27 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"elladan@...imo.com" <elladan@...imo.com>,
"npiggin@...e.de" <npiggin@...e.de>,
"minchan.kim@...il.com" <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] vmscan: protect a fraction of file backed mapped
pages from reclaim
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
>>> Streaming I/O means access once?
>> Yeah, "used-once pages" would be a better criteria, since
>> you could go through a gigantic set of used-once pages without
>> doing linear IO.
>
> Can we see some load for which this patch has a beneficial effect?
> With some numbers?
How many do you want before you're satisfied that this
benefits a significant number of workloads?
How many numbers do you want to feel safe that no workloads
suffer badly from this patch?
Also, wow would you measure a concept as nebulous as desktop
interactivity?
Btw, the patch has gone into the Fedora kernel RPM to get
a good amount of user testing. I'll let you know what the
users say (if anything).
--
All rights reversed.
--
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