Re: [patch] mm: more likely reclaim MADV_SEQUENTIAL mappings II

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

>>> Well, time-wise not sooo much of an improvement.  But given the
>>> massively decreased LRU-rotation [ http://hannes.saeurebad.de/madvseq/ ]
>>
>> My first impression, this result mean the patch is not so useful.
>> But anyway, I mesured it again because I think Nick's opinion is very
>> reasonable and I don't know your mesurement condition so detail.
>
> It may not make much of a difference if the MADV_SEQUENTIAL
> program is the only thing running on the system.
>
> However, the goal of MADV_SEQUENTIAL is to make sure that a
> streaming mapping does not kick the data from other programs
> out of memory.  The patch should take care of that very well.


Well, my second test(following) indicate it IMO.

> 2. MADV_SEQUENTIAL vs dbench
>
>                        mmotm1022   + the patch
>  ==============================================================
>  mm_sync_madv_cp       6:29        6:19           (min:sec)
>  dbench throughput     11.633      14.4045        (MB/s)
>  dbench latency        65628       18565          (ms)


So, I think the code of this patch is good, but I guess his mesurement
way isn't so good.

--
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>