Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:10:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:10:14 -0400 Received: from loke.as.arizona.edu ([128.196.209.61]:22280 "EHLO loke.as.arizona.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:10:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:09:23 -0700 (MST) From: Craig Kulesa To: Daniel Phillips cc: Rik van Riel , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] (2/2) reverse mappings for current 2.5.23 VM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1133 Lines: 26 On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > You might conclude from the above that the lru+rmap is superior to > aging+rmap: while they show the same wall-clock time, lru+rmap consumes > considerably less disk bandwidth. I wouldn't draw _any_ conclusions about either patch yet, because as you said, it's only one type of load. And it was a single tick in vmstat where page_launder() was aggressive that made the difference between the two. In a different test, where I had actually *used* more of the application pages instead of simply closing most of the applications (save one, the memory hog), the results are likely to have been very different. I think that Rik's right: this simply points out that page_launder(), at least in its interaction with 2.5, needs some tuning. I think both approaches look very promising, but each for different reasons. -Craig - 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/