From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:52:09 -0500 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: MADV_WILLNEED implementation for anonymous memory Message-ID: <20080131055209.6adede04@riellaptop.surriel.com> In-Reply-To: <20080131110610.GA31090@one.firstfloor.org> References: <1201714139.28547.237.camel@lappy> <20080130144049.73596898.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1201769040.28547.245.camel@lappy> <20080131011227.257b9437.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1201772118.28547.254.camel@lappy> <20080131014702.705f1040.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1201773206.28547.259.camel@lappy> <20080131021949.92715ba4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080131110610.GA31090@one.firstfloor.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andi Kleen Cc: Andrew Morton , Peter Zijlstra , hugh@veritas.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, npiggin@suse.de, mztabzr@0pointer.de, mpm@selenic.com List-ID: On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:06:10 +0100 Andi Kleen wrote: > > Yeah, the 2.5 switch to physical scanning killed us there. > > > > I still don't know why my > > allocate-swapspace-according-to-virtual-address change didn't > > help. Much. Marcelo played with that a bit too. > > I've been thinking about just always doing swap on > page clusters. > Any reason swapping couldn't be done on e.g. 1MB chunks? Don't malloc() and free() hopelessly fragment memory over time, ensuring that little related data can be found inside each 1MB chunk if the process is large enough? (say, firefox) -- 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