[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5284F2B0.1080708@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:56:32 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Seth Jennings <sjenning@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
Ozgun Erdogan <ozgun@...usdata.com>,
Metin Doslu <metin@...usdata.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 0/8] mm: thrash detection-based file cache sizing v5
On 10/21/2013 05:26 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 11:46 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> here is an update to the cache sizing patches for 3.13.
>>
>> Changes in this revision
>>
>> o Drop frequency synchronization between refaulted and demoted pages
>> and just straight up activate refaulting pages whose access
>> frequency indicates they could stay in memory. This was suggested
>> by Rik van Riel a looong time ago but misinterpretation of test
>> results during early stages of development took me a while to
>> overcome. It's still the same overall concept, but a little simpler
>> and with even faster cache adaptation. Yay!
>
> Oh, I liked the previous approach with direct competition between the
> refaulted and demoted page :) Doesn't the new approach favor the
> refaulted page too much? No wonder it leads to faster cache adaptation,
> but could it also cause degradations for workloads that don't benefit
> from it? Were there any tests for performance regressions on workloads
> that were not the target of the patchset?
This is a good question, and one that is probably
best settled through experimentation.
Even with the first scheme (fault refaulted page to
the inactive list), those pages only need 2 accesses
to be promoted to the active list.
That is because a refault tends to immediately be
followed by an access (after all, the attempted
access causes the page to get loaded back into memory).
--
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