On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:41:14 +0900
Hisashi Hifumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >So I do think that for safety and sanity's sake, we should be taking a ref
> >on the pages when they are in a pagevec. That's going to hurt your nice
> >performance numbers :(
> >
>
> I did ping test again t
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
> > > r
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-buffer
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?
> I think your patch is a nice idea, and with less zone lock contention in other
> a
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 20:41, Hisashi Hifumi wrote:
> I modified my patch based on your comment.
>
> At 11:37 07/09/14, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >So I do think that for safety and sanity's sake, we should be taking a
> > ref on the pages when they are in a pagevec. That's going to hurt your
I modified my patch based on your comment.
At 11:37 07/09/14, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
>So I do think that for safety and sanity's sake, we should be taking a ref
>on the pages when they are in a pagevec. That's going to hurt your nice
>performance numbers :(
>
I did ping test again to observe pe
Thank you for your comment.
At 11:37 07/09/14, Andrew Morton wrote:
>The page_count() test here is a bit of a worry, too. Why do we need it?
>The caller must have pinned the page in some fashion else we couldn't use
>it safely in this function at all.
>
>I assume that you discovered that once w
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:31:12 +0900 Hisashi Hifumi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.
> While running some memory intensive load, system response
> deteriorated just after swap-out started.
>
> The cause of this problem is that when a PG_reclaim page is
> moved to the tail of the inactive LRU list i
8 matches
Mail list logo