lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
david@lang.hm wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

>> And constructed test cases of course are useful as well, I didn't say
>> they weren't. I don't know what you mean by "acceptable", but you should
>> read my last paragraph again.
>
>
> this problem has been around for many years, with many different people
> working on solutions. it's hardly a case of getting a proposal and
> trying to get it in without anyone looking at other options.

What is "this problem"? People have an updatedb problem that is solved
by swap prefetching which I want to fix in a different way.

There would be a different problem of "run something that uses heaps of
memory and swap everything else out, then quit it, wait for a while, and
swap prefetching helps". OK, definitely swap prefetching would help there.
How much? I don't know. I'd be slightly surprised if it was like an order
of magnitude, because not only swap but everything else has been thrown
out too.


> it seems that there are some people (not nessasarily including you) who
> will oppose this feature until a test is created that shows that it's
> better. the question is what sort of test will be accepted as valid? I'm
> not useing this patch, but it sounds as if the people who are useing it
> are interested in doing whatever testing is required, but so far the
> situation seems to be a series of "here's a test", "that test isn't
> valid, try again" loops. which don't seem to be doing anyone any good

And yet despite my repeated pleas, none of those people has yet spent a
bit of time with me to help analyse what is happening.


> and are frustrating lots of people, so like several people over the last
> few days O'm asking the question, "what sort of test would be acceptable
> as proof that this patch does some good?"

I don't think any further proof is needed that the patch does "some"
good. Rig up a test case and you could see some seconds shaved off it.
Maybe you want to know "how to get this patch merged"? And I don't know
that one. I do know that it is fuzzy, and probably doesn't include
demanding things of Andrew or Linus.

BTW. If you find out the answer to that one, let me know because I have
this lockless pagecache patch that has also been around for years, is
also just a few hundred lines in the VM, and does do some good too. I'm
sure the buffered AIO people and many others would also like to know.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-25 09:27    [W:0.333 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site