[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <4A3FC68A.2030104@lfbs.rwth-aachen.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:59:38 +0200
From: Stefan Lankes <lankes@...s.rwth-aachen.de>
To: Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@...ia.fr>
Cc: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
'Andi Kleen' <andi@...stfloor.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-numa@...r.kernel.org,
Boris Bierbaum <boris@...s.RWTH-Aachen.DE>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4]: affinity-on-next-touch
Brice Goglin wrote:
> Lee Schermerhorn wrote:
>> The primary difference should be at unmap time, right? In the fault
>> path, I only update the pte of the faulting task. That's why I require
>> the [anon] pages to be in the swap cache [or something similar]. I
>> don't want to be fixing up other tasks' page tables in the context of
>> the faulting task's fault handler. If, later, another task touches the
>> page, it will take a minor fault and find the [possibly migrated] page
>> in the cache. Hmmm, I guess all tasks WILL incur the minor fault if
>> they touch the page after the unmap. That could be part of the
>> difference if you compare on the same kernel version.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Try booting with cgroup_disable=memory on the command line, if you have
>> the memory resource controller configured in. See what that does to
>> your measurements.
>>
>
> It doesn't seem to help. I'll try to bisect and find where the
> performance dropped.
>
I am not able to reconstruct any performance drawbacks on my system.
Could you send me your low-level benchmark?
Stefan
--
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