[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51D471DE.3020800@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:47:58 -0400
From: Yannick Brosseau <yannick.brosseau@...il.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
CC: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Rob van der Heij <rvdheij@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org" <lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org>
Subject: Re: [-stable 3.8.1 performance regression] madvise POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED
On 2013-07-03 04:47, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> Given it is just a hint, we should be allowed to perform page
>> > deactivation lazily. Is there any fundamental reason to wait for worker
>> > threads on each CPU to complete their lru drain before returning from
>> > fadvise() to user-space ?
>> >
> Only to make sure they pages are actually dropped as requested. The reason
> the wait was introduced in the first place was that page cache was filling
> up even with the fadvise calls and causing disruption. In 3.11 disruption
> due to this sort of parallel IO should be reduced but making fadvise work
> properly is reasonable in itself. Was that patch I posted ever tested or
> did I manage to miss it?
I did test it. On our test case, we get a worst result with it.
Yannick
--
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