Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] deactivate invalidated pages

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>]

> > I don't like this change because fadvise(DONT_NEED) is rarely used
> > function and this PG_reclaim trick doesn't improve so much. In the
> > other hand, It increase VM state mess.
> > 
> 
> Can we please stop appealing to this argument? The reason that
> fadvise(DONT_NEED) is currently rarely employed is that the interface as
> implemented now is extremely kludgey to use.
> 
> Are you proposing that this particular implementation is not worth the
> mess (as opposed to putting the pages at the head of the inactive list
> as done earlier) or would you rather that we simply leave DONT_NEED in
> its current state? Even if today's gains aren't as great as we would
> like them to be, we should still make an effort to make fadvise()
> usable, if for no other reason than to encourage use in user-space so
> that applications can benefit when we finally do figure out how to
> properly account for the user's hints.

Hi

I'm not againt DONT_NEED feature. I only said PG_reclaim trick is not
so effective. Every feature has their own pros/cons. I think the cons
is too big. Also, nobody have mesured PG_reclaim performance gain. Did you?



--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>