From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:03:11 -0400 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: PERF: performance tests with the split LRU VM in -mm Message-ID: <20080728200311.2218af4e@cuia.bos.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20080728195713.42cbceed@cuia.bos.redhat.com> References: <20080724222510.3bbbbedc@bree.surriel.com> <20080728105742.50d6514e@cuia.bos.redhat.com> <20080728164124.8240eabe.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080728195713.42cbceed@cuia.bos.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:57:13 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:41:24 -0700 > Andrew Morton 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: email@kvack.org