From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:31:54 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel Subject: Re: [RFC:PATCH 00/07] VM File Tails Message-ID: <20070829213154.GB29635@lazybastard.org> References: <20070829205325.28328.67953.sendpatchset@norville.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20070829205325.28328.67953.sendpatchset@norville.austin.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave Kleikamp Cc: linux-mm List-ID: On Wed, 29 August 2007 16:53:25 -0400, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > > - benchmark! I'd love to know how much difference this makes. Basically four numbers: - number of address spaces - bytes allocated for file tails - number of pages allocated for non-tail storage - number of pages allocated for tail storage With those it should be possible to calculate how much is saved by using tail and how much is wasted by having both tails and a page. Putting this in relation to the total amount of data in page cache is interesting as well. While not as decisive as benchmarks it may give some indication why certain workloads benefit or suffer. JA?rn -- The rabbit runs faster than the fox, because the rabbit is rinning for his life while the fox is only running for his dinner. -- Aesop -- 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