On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Please do let me know if someone finds a good standard test for it or a
> way to stress reclaim. I've heard AIM7 come up often, but never been
> able to push it much. I should retry.
AIM7 does small computing loads reflecting an earlier time. I wish ther
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>>> It increases the lock hold times though. Otoh it might work out with the
>>> lock placement.
>> Yeah may be good for NUMA.
>
> Mig
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Tried to run AIM7 but the improvements are in the noise. I need a tests
> > that really does large memory allocation and stresses the LRU. I could
> > code something up but then Lee's patch addresses some of the same issues.
> > Is there any standar
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > It increases the lock hold times though. Otoh it might work out with the
> > lock placement.
>
> Yeah may be good for NUMA.
Might, I'd just like a _little_ ju
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> It increases the lock hold times though. Otoh it might work out with the
> lock placement.
Yeah may be good for NUMA.
> Do you have any numbers that show this is worthwhile?
Tried to run AIM7 but the improvements are in the noise. I need a tests
th
On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 15:23 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> This patch allows a configuration of the basic reclaim unit for reclaim in
> vmscan.c. As memory sizes increase so will the frequency of running
> reclaim. Configuring the reclaim unit higher will reduce the number of
> times reclaim
6 matches
Mail list logo
