[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <550C8E82.2020309@youngman.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 21:17:54 +0000
From: Wols Lists <antlists@...ngman.org.uk>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
axboe@...nel.dk, linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, mgorman@...e.de, hch@...radead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] evacuate struct page from the block layer
On 20/03/15 20:31, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Ah! I've looked at that a couple of times as well. I asked our database
> performance team what impact freeing up the memmap would have on their
> performance. They told me that doubling the amount of memory generally
> resulted in approximately a 40% performance improvement. So freeing up
> 1.5% additional memory would result in about 0.6% performance improvement,
> which I thought was probably too small a return on investment to justify
> turning memmap into a two-level data structure.
Don't get me started on databases! This is very much a relational
problem, other databases don't suffer like this.
(imho relational theory is totally inappropriate for an engineering
problem, like designing a database engine ...)
Cheers,
Wol
--
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