Re: PERF: performance tests with the split LRU VM in -mm

[Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:57:13 -0400
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:41:24 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Andrew, what is your preference between:
> > > 	http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/15/465
> > > and
> > > 	http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=121683855132630&w=2
> > > 
> > 
> > Boy.  They both seem rather hacky special-cases.  But that doesn't mean
> > that they're undesirable hacky special-cases.  I guess the second one
> > looks a bit more "algorithmic" and a bit less hacky-special-case.  But
> > it all depends on testing..
> 
> I prefer the second one, since it removes the + 1 magic (at least,
> for the higher priorities), instead of adding new magic like the
> other patch does.

Btw, didn't you add that "+ 1" originally early on in the 2.6 VM?

Do you remember its purpose?  

Does it still make sense to have that "+ 1" in the split LRU VM?

Could we get away with just removing it unconditionally?

-- 
All Rights Reversed

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>