From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <400F7965.5050605@cyberone.com.au> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 18:19:01 +1100 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [BENCHMARKS] Namesys VM patches improve kbuild References: <400F630F.80205@cyberone.com.au> <20040121223608.1ea30097.akpm@osdl.org> <400F738A.40505@cyberone.com.au> <20040121230408.7b8b9a92.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040121230408.7b8b9a92.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Nikita@Namesys.COM List-ID: Andrew Morton wrote: >Nick Piggin wrote: > >> By the way, what >> do you think of this? Did I miss something non obvious? >> >> Seems to make little difference on the benchmarks. Without the patch, >> the active list would generally be attacked more aggressively. >> >> >> >>[vm-fix-shrink-zone.patch text/plain (2741 bytes)] >> >> Use the actual number of pages difference when trying to keep the inactive >> list 1/2 the size of the active list (1/3 the size of all pages) instead of >> a meaningless ratio. >> > >Frankly, that `ratio' thing has always hurt my brain, so I left it as-is >from 2.4 because it never caused any obvious problems. > >If we can put some clearer rationale behind what we're doing in there then >great. > Hmm, I actually did misread it a bit. The ratio is: nr_pages * zone->nr_active / (zone->nr_inactive * 2) Which is nr_pages if the active list is size we want. So its not so bad as I thought. Scaling by nr_pages would seem to couple it strongly with free pages though. My patch makes it more independent. No I don't know if thats good or not, it would obviously need a lot of testing. -- 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: aart@kvack.org