[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: do not drain pagevecs for mlock
2012/1/6 Tao Ma <>:
> Hi Kosaki,
> On 12/30/2011 06:07 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>>>> 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
>> /proc/meminfo
>> show inaccurate number very easily. So, if 200usec is no avoidable,
>> I'll ack you.
>> But I'm not convinced yet.
> Do you find something new for this?


Or more exactly, 200usec is my calculation mistake. your program call mlock
3 times per each iteration. so, correct cost is 66usec.

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-06 07:21    [W:0.217 / U:5.828 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site