[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PERF: performance tests with the split LRU VM in -mm
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:41:24 -0700
Andrew Morton <> wrote:

> > Andrew, what is your preference between:
> >
> > and
> >
> >
> Boy. They both seem rather hacky special-cases. But that doesn't mean
> that they're undesirable hacky special-cases. I guess the second one
> looks a bit more "algorithmic" and a bit less hacky-special-case. But
> it all depends on testing..

I prefer the second one, since it removes the + 1 magic (at least,
for the higher priorities), instead of adding new magic like the
other patch does.

> On a different topic, these:
> vmscan-give-referenced-active-and-unmapped-pages-a-second-trip-around-the-lru.patch
> vm-dont-run-touch_buffer-during-buffercache-lookups.patch
> have been floating about in -mm for ages, awaiting demonstration that
> they're a net benefit. But all of this new page-reclaim rework was
> built on top of those two patches and incorporates and retains them.
> I could toss them out, but that would require some rework and would
> partially invalidate previous testing and who knows, they _might_ be
> good patches. Or they might not be.
> What are your thoughts?

I believe you should definately keep those. Being able to better
preserve actively accessed file pages could be a good benefit and
we have yet to discover a downside to those patches.

All Rights Reversed

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-29 01:59    [W:0.054 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site