[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: PERF: performance tests with the split LRU VM in -mm
    On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:41:24 -0700
    Andrew Morton <> wrote:

    > > Andrew, what is your preference between:
    > >
    > > and
    > >
    > >
    > Boy. They both seem rather hacky special-cases. But that doesn't mean
    > that they're undesirable hacky special-cases. I guess the second one
    > looks a bit more "algorithmic" and a bit less hacky-special-case. But
    > it all depends on testing..

    I prefer the second one, since it removes the + 1 magic (at least,
    for the higher priorities), instead of adding new magic like the
    other patch does.

    > On a different topic, these:
    > vmscan-give-referenced-active-and-unmapped-pages-a-second-trip-around-the-lru.patch
    > vm-dont-run-touch_buffer-during-buffercache-lookups.patch
    > have been floating about in -mm for ages, awaiting demonstration that
    > they're a net benefit. But all of this new page-reclaim rework was
    > built on top of those two patches and incorporates and retains them.
    > I could toss them out, but that would require some rework and would
    > partially invalidate previous testing and who knows, they _might_ be
    > good patches. Or they might not be.
    > What are your thoughts?

    I believe you should definately keep those. Being able to better
    preserve actively accessed file pages could be a good benefit and
    we have yet to discover a downside to those patches.

    All Rights Reversed

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-07-29 01:59    [W:0.028 / U:3.116 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site