Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:28:17 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.0-test9 - poor swap performance on low end machines |
| |
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:05:25PM +0100, Roger Luethi wrote: >> Also, the 2.6 core VM doesn't seem all that bad since it was introduced in >> 2.5.27 but most of the problems I measured were introduced after 2.5.40. >> Check out the graph I posted.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 11:44:46PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > you're confusing rmap with core vm. rmap in no way can be defined as the > core vm, rmap is just a method used by the core vm to find some > information more efficiently at the expenses of all the fast paths > that now have to do the rmap bookkeeping.
I've been maintaining one of the answers to this (anobjrmap, originally from hugh). I still haven't removed page->mapcount because keeping nr_mapped straight requires some care, though doing so should be feasible.
I could probably use some helpers to untangle it from the highpmd, compile-time mapping->page_lock rwlock/spinlock switching, RCU mapping->i_shared_lock, and O(1) proc_pid_statm() bits.
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |