[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: do not drain pagevecs for mlock
    Hi Kosaki,
    On 12/30/2011 06:07 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
    >>> Because your test program is too artificial. 20sec/100000times =
    >>> 200usec. And your
    >>> program repeat mlock and munlock the exact same address. so, yes, if
    >>> lru_add_drain_all() is removed, it become near no-op. but it's
    >>> worthless comparision.
    >>> none of any practical program does such strange mlock usage.
    >> yes, I should say it is artificial. But mlock did cause the problem in
    >> our product system and perf shows that the mlock uses the system time
    >> much more than others. That's the reason we created this program to test
    >> whether mlock really sucks. And we compared the result with
    >> rhel5(2.6.18) which runs much much faster.
    >> And from the commit log you described, we can remove lru_add_drain_all
    >> safely here, so why add it? At least removing it makes mlock much faster
    >> compared to the vanilla kernel.
    > If we remove it, we lose to a test way of mlock. "Memlocked" field of
    > /proc/meminfo
    > show inaccurate number very easily. So, if 200usec is no avoidable,
    > I'll ack you.
    > But I'm not convinced yet.
    Do you find something new for this?


     \ /
      Last update: 2012-01-06 07:17    [W:0.022 / U:1.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site