From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <48EBD469.6090409@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:28:09 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: split-lru performance mesurement part2 References: <20081003153810.5dd0a33e@bree.surriel.com> <20081004232549.CE53.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20081007231851.3B88.KOSAKI.MOTOHIRO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20081007131719.8bb24698.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20081007131719.8bb24698.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, dlezcano@fr.ibm.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, neilb@suse.de, davem@davemloft.net List-ID: Andrew Morton wrote: > dbench is pretty chaotic and it could be that a good change causes > dbench to get worse. That's happened plenty of times in the past. > > >> Do you have any suggestion? > > > One of these: > > vmscan-give-referenced-active-and-unmapped-pages-a-second-trip-around-the-lru.patch > vm-dont-run-touch_buffer-during-buffercache-lookups.patch > > perhaps? Worth a try, but it could just as well be a CPU scheduler change that happens to indirectly impact locking :) -- 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