[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH] Include LRU in page count
On Monday 02 September 2002 01:08, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Note that I changed the spin_lock in page_cache_release to a trylock, maybe
> > it's worth checking out the effect on contention. With a little head
> > scratching we might be able to get rid of the spin_lock in lru_cache_add as
> > well. That leaves (I think) just the two big scan loops. I've always felt
> > it's silly to run more than one of either at the same time anyway.
> No way. Take a look at
> That's 8-way power4, the workload is "dd from 7 disks
> dd if=/dev/sd* of=/dev/null bs=1024k".
> The CPU load in this situation was dominated by the VM. The LRU list and page
> reclaim. Spending more CPU in lru_cache_add() than in copy_to_user() is
> pretty gross.

Are we looking at the same thing? The cpu load there is dominated by cpu_idle,
89%. Anyway, if your point is that it makes sense to run shrink_cache or
refill_inactive in parallel, I don't see it because they'll serialize on the
lru lock anyway. What would make sense is to make shink_cache nonblocking.

> My approach was to keep the existing design and warm it up, rather than to
> redesign.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.130 / U:8.776 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site