Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264653AbUDVT6i (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:58:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264646AbUDVTzs (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:55:48 -0400 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:8842 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264657AbUDVTxV (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:53:21 -0400 Message-ID: <408822F1.80409@tmr.com> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:54:25 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hugh Dickins CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Benchmarking objrmap under memory pressure References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2084 Lines: 46 Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Bill Davidsen wrote: > >>Hugh Dickins wrote: >> >>>The worst that will happen with anonmm's mremap move, is that some >>>app might go slower and need more swap. Unlikely, but agreed possible. >> >>It appears that users on small memory machines running kde are not of >>concern to you. Unfortunately that describes a fair number of people, >>not everyone has the big memory fast system. I will try to get some >>reproducible numbers, but "consistently feels faster" is a reason to >>keep running -aa even if I can't quantify it. > > > Appearances can be deceptive. Of course I care about users, > of small or large memory machines, running kde or not. > > It appears that you do not understand that we're talking about a > case so rare that we've never seen it in practice, only by testing. > > But perhaps we haven't looked out for it enough (no printk), I'd better > put something in to tell us when it does occur, thanks for the reminder. > > If -aa consistently feels faster to you, great, go with it: > but I doubt it's because of this issue we're discussing! I don't disagree on that, but it seems that KDE developers have put some serious effort into making the software well-behaved, and unless there is some measurable benefit from the code which negates the benefits of that effort, it seems desirable to appreciate code code by letting it work. I was more commenting on the good performance at the bottom end than addressing the large machines. All the big machines I have are in the overkill range, and finding small benefits doesn't do much with production loads, so I can't contribute any useful info at that end. -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - 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/