From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:09:23 -0700 (MST) From: Craig Kulesa Subject: Re: [PATCH] (2/2) reverse mappings for current 2.5.23 VM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Rik van Riel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > You might conclude from the above that the lru+rmap is superior to > aging+rmap: while they show the same wall-clock time, lru+rmap consumes > considerably less disk bandwidth. I wouldn't draw _any_ conclusions about either patch yet, because as you said, it's only one type of load. And it was a single tick in vmstat where page_launder() was aggressive that made the difference between the two. In a different test, where I had actually *used* more of the application pages instead of simply closing most of the applications (save one, the memory hog), the results are likely to have been very different. I think that Rik's right: this simply points out that page_launder(), at least in its interaction with 2.5, needs some tuning. I think both approaches look very promising, but each for different reasons. -Craig -- 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/