[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101129110848.82A8.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:13:53 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@...il.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] deactivate invalidated pages
> > I don't like this change because fadvise(DONT_NEED) is rarely used
> > function and this PG_reclaim trick doesn't improve so much. In the
> > other hand, It increase VM state mess.
> >
>
> Can we please stop appealing to this argument? The reason that
> fadvise(DONT_NEED) is currently rarely employed is that the interface as
> implemented now is extremely kludgey to use.
>
> Are you proposing that this particular implementation is not worth the
> mess (as opposed to putting the pages at the head of the inactive list
> as done earlier) or would you rather that we simply leave DONT_NEED in
> its current state? Even if today's gains aren't as great as we would
> like them to be, we should still make an effort to make fadvise()
> usable, if for no other reason than to encourage use in user-space so
> that applications can benefit when we finally do figure out how to
> properly account for the user's hints.
Hi
I'm not againt DONT_NEED feature. I only said PG_reclaim trick is not
so effective. Every feature has their own pros/cons. I think the cons
is too big. Also, nobody have mesured PG_reclaim performance gain. Did you?
--
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