Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:19:08 +1100 (EST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: mmap()/VM problem in 2.4.0 |
| |
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Vlad Bolkhovitine wrote: > > > > > You can see, mmap() read performance dropped significantly as > > > well as read() one raised. Plus, "interactivity" of 2.4.0 system > > > was much worse during mmap'ed test, than using read() > > > (everything was quite smooth here). 2.4.0-test7 was badly > > > interactive in both cases. > > > > Could have to do with page_launder() ... I'm working on > > streaming mmap() performance here and have been working > > on this for a week now (amongst other things). > > Also remember that drop_behind() is not working for mmap(), yet...
filemap_sync(..., MS_INVALIDATE) needs a 2-line change to have drop-behind. I have this running (more or less) on my laptop here.
regards,
Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose...
http://www.surriel.com/ http://www.conectiva.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com.br/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |