[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: do not drain pagevecs for mlock
>> Because your test program is too artificial. 20sec/100000times =
>> 200usec. And your
>> program repeat mlock and munlock the exact same address. so, yes, if
>> lru_add_drain_all() is removed, it become near no-op. but it's
>> worthless comparision.
>> none of any practical program does such strange mlock usage.
> yes, I should say it is artificial. But mlock did cause the problem in
> our product system and perf shows that the mlock uses the system time
> much more than others. That's the reason we created this program to test
> whether mlock really sucks. And we compared the result with
> rhel5(2.6.18) which runs much much faster.
> And from the commit log you described, we can remove lru_add_drain_all
> safely here, so why add it? At least removing it makes mlock much faster
> compared to the vanilla kernel.

If we remove it, we lose to a test way of mlock. "Memlocked" field of
show inaccurate number very easily. So, if 200usec is no avoidable,
I'll ack you.
But I'm not convinced yet.

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-30 11:11    [W:0.143 / U:0.908 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site