From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3917C33F.1FA1BAD4@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 00:50:23 -0700 From: Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: A possible winner in pre7-8 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 8 May 2000, Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan wrote: > > > > Not sure entirely what effect this has, except for freeing underlying > > buffer_head's. The page itself is still skipped. Anyway, brief examination > > shows that you've changed several things here (in 7-7), so I'll have to go > > at it some more time to get a full picture. > > Actually, look at pre7-8 instead. > > pre7-7 was rather useful to me - I tested the exact same kernel with the > only difference being the order of the "zone free" and the > "try_to_free_buffers()" tests, and that's what I then released as pre7-7. > But pre7-8 has what I believe to be a saner order when it comes to the > other tests. Interesting! This stuff is coming out faster than I can patch. In any case, good news about pre7-8: not only does dbench run without errors, but it runs well. Let's hope that others (Juan & Benjamin to name two) see similar results. > > > Unfortunately my dbench test really runs bad with pre 7-7. > > Quantitively, the amount of memory in "cache" of vmstat > > is higher than before. write()'s start failing. > > Can you tell me how they fail? Is it with a ENOMEM, or is there something > more insidious going on? > > I tested pre7-7 with 20MB of RAM, and it was fine. But I didn't run > dbench: instead I tested it with X and netscape and a kernel recursive > diff - really more to test that it works ok under real load. Something > which previous pre7's definitely did not do well on at all. pre7-8 should > be better, because it has the LRU enabled on the buffer cache too, > something that pre7-7 lost due to the ordering changes. > pre7-8 is definitely better; 7-7 was really bad. I don't know for sure but the write failure was similar to what I've seen earlier with ENOMEM. More after looking at your changes in 7-6 -> 7-7 and 7-7 ->7-8 ... -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan ("ananth") Member Technical Staff, SGI. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/