On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:47:44 +1000 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 September 2007 03:44, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:29:50 +1000 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > It would be interesting to test -mm kernels. They have a patch which > > > reduces zone lock contention quite a lot. > > > > They do? Which patch? > > Hmm... mm-buffered-write-cleanup.patch. hmm. > > > > I think your patch is a nice idea, and with less zone lock contention in > > > other areas, it is possible that it might produce a relatively larger > > > improvement. > > > > I'm a bit wobbly about this patch - it adds additional single-cpu overhead > > to reduce multiple-cpu overhead and latency. > > Yeah, that's true. Although maybe it gets significantly more after the > patch in -mm. > > Possibly other page batching sites have similar issues on UP... I wonder > if a type of pagevec that turns into a noop on UP would be interesting... > probably totally unmeasurable and not worth the cost of code > maintenance ;) Yes, I wonder that. Some of the additional overhead will come from the additional get_page/put_page which is needed for pagevec ownership. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
