From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 10:21:09 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] clockpro-clockpro.patch Message-ID: <20060103122109.GC5288@dmt.cnet> References: <20051230223952.765.21096.sendpatchset@twins.localnet> <20051230224312.765.58575.sendpatchset@twins.localnet> <20051231224021.GA5184@dmt.cnet> <1136111854.17853.77.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1136111854.17853.77.camel@twins> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , Wu Fengguang , Nick Piggin , Marijn Meijles , Rik van Riel List-ID: On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 11:37:34AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 20:40 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > From: Peter Zijlstra > > > > Peter, > > > > I tried your "scan-shared.c" proggy which loops over 140M of a file > > using mmap (on a 128MB box). The number of loops was configured to "5". > > > > The amount of major/minor pagefaults was exactly the same between > > vanilla and clockpro, isnt the clockpro algorithm supposed to be > > superior than LRU in such "sequential scan of MEMSIZE+1" cases? > > yes it should, hmm, have to look at that then. > > What should happen is that nr_cold_target should drop to the bare > minimum, which effectivly pins all hot pages and only rotates the few > cold pages. I screwed up the tests. Here are the real numbers. Test: scan 140MB file sequentially, 5 times. Env: 128Mb machine CLOCK-Pro: 0:49:98elapsed 18%CPU 7358maj+95308min vanilla: 1:28.05elapsed 11%CPU 12950maj+166374min Kicking some large arses! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org