lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] the proposal of improve page reclaim by throttle
    On Feb 20, 2008 6:24 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
    > Hi Kim-san
    >
    > Do you adjust hackbench parameter?
    > my parameter adjust my test machine(8GB mem),
    > if unchanged, maybe doesn't works it because lack memory.

    I already adjusted it. :-)
    But, In my desktop, I couldn't make to consune my swap device above
    half. (My swap device is 512M size)
    Because my kernel almost was hang before happening many swapping.
    Perhaps, it might be a not hang. However, Although I wait a very long
    time, My box don't have a any response.
    I will try do it more.

    > > I am a many interested in your patch. so I want to test it with exact
    > > same method as you did.
    > > I will test it in embedded environment(ARM 920T, 32M ram) and my
    > > desktop machine.(Core2Duo 2.2G, 2G ram)
    >
    > Hm
    > I don't have embedded test machine.
    > but I can desktop.
    > I will test it about weekend.
    > if you don't mind, could you please send me .config file
    > and tell me your test kernel version?

    I mean I will test your patch by myself.
    Because I already have a embedded board and Desktop.

    > Thanks, interesting report.
    >
    >
    > > I guess this patch won't be efficient in embedded environment.
    > > Since many embedded board just have one processor and don't have any
    > > swap device.
    >
    > reclaim conflict rarely happened on UP.
    > thus, my patch expect no improvement.

    I agree with you.

    > but (of course) I will fix regression.

    I didn't say your patch had a regression.
    What I mean is just that I am concern about it.
    Actually, Many VM guys is working on server environment.
    They didn't try to do performance test in embedde system.
    and that patch was submitted in mainline.

    Actually, I am concern about it.

    > > So, How do I evaluate following field as you did ?
    > >
    > > * elapse (what do you mean it ??)
    > > * major fault
    >
    > /usr/bin/time command output that.
    >
    >
    > > * max parallel reclaim tasks:
    > > * max consumption time of
    > > try_to_free_pages():
    >
    > sorry, I inserted debug code to my patch at that time.
    >

    Could you send me that debug code ?
    If you will send it to me, I will test it my environment (ARM-920T, Core2Duo).
    And I will report test result.

    --
    Thanks,
    barrios


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-02-20 10:51    [W:0.024 / U:61.332 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site