From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:56:15 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH] Configurable reclaim batch size Message-ID: <20070917215615.685a5378@lappy> In-Reply-To: References: <1189812002.5826.31.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman List-ID: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > It increases the lock hold times though. Otoh it might work out with the > > lock placement. > > Yeah may be good for NUMA. Might, I'd just like a _little_ justification for an extra tunable. > > Do you have any numbers that show this is worthwhile? > > Tried to run AIM7 but the improvements are in the noise. I need a tests > that really does large memory allocation and stresses the LRU. I could > code something up but then Lee's patch addresses some of the same issues. > Is there any standard test that shows LRU handling regressions? hehe, I wish. I was just hoping you'd done this patch as a result of an actual problem and not a hunch. -- 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