[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171002144903.d58ed6887adfd9dc4cdfd697@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:49:03 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, swap: Make VMA based swap readahead configurable
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 08:45:40 -0700 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> On 09/27/2017 06:02 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
> > I still think there may be a performance regression for some users
> > because of the change of the algorithm and the knobs, and the
> > performance regression can be resolved via setting the new knob. But I
> > don't think there will be a functionality regression. Do you agree?
>
> A performance regression is a regression. I don't understand why we are
> splitting hairs as to what kind of regression it is.
>
Yes.
Ying, please find us a way of avoiding any disruption to existing
system setups. One which doesn't require that the operator perform a
configuration change to restore prior behaviour/performance. And
please let's get this done well in advance of the 4.14 release.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists