On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 01:48:18AM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:13:56AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:00AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > On 10/23/2012 01:51 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 01:48:18AM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:13:56AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:00AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 10/23/2012 01:51 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I have no
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:13:56AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:00AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On 10/23/2012 01:51 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > >
> > > >I have no strong point against the global state method. But I'd agree
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:13:56AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:00AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 10/23/2012 01:51 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I have no strong point against the global state method. But I'd agree
making
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:13:56AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:00AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 10/23/2012 01:51 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
> >
> > >I have no strong point against the global state method. But I'd agree
> > >making the
> > >heuristic simple is
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 09:13:56AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:00AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 10/23/2012 01:51 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I have no strong point against the global state method. But I'd agree
making the
heuristic simple is preferred currently.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:00AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 10/23/2012 01:51 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
>
> >I have no strong point against the global state method. But I'd agree making
> >the
> >heuristic simple is preferred currently. I'm happy about the patch if the
> >'+1'
> >is removed.
On 10/23/2012 01:51 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I have no strong point against the global state method. But I'd agree making the
heuristic simple is preferred currently. I'm happy about the patch if the '+1'
is removed.
Without the +1, how will you figure out when to re-enable readahead?
--
All
On 10/23/2012 01:51 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I have no strong point against the global state method. But I'd agree making the
heuristic simple is preferred currently. I'm happy about the patch if the '+1'
is removed.
Without the +1, how will you figure out when to re-enable readahead?
--
All
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 09:41:00AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
On 10/23/2012 01:51 AM, Shaohua Li wrote:
I have no strong point against the global state method. But I'd agree making
the
heuristic simple is preferred currently. I'm happy about the patch if the
'+1'
is removed.
Without
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:16:40PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:50:49AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:09:58PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > >
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:50:49AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:09:58PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > >
> > > > Here results of my test. Workload isn't very realistic, but
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:50:49AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:09:58PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >
> > > Here results of my test. Workload isn't very realistic, but at least it
> > > threaded: compiling linux-3.6
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:50:49AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:09:58PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Here results of my test. Workload isn't very realistic, but at least it
threaded: compiling linux-3.6 with
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:50:49AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:09:58PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Here results of my test. Workload isn't very realistic, but at least it
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:16:40PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 08:50:49AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:09:58PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Here
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:09:58PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>
> > Here results of my test. Workload isn't very realistic, but at least it
> > threaded: compiling linux-3.6 with defconfig in 16 threads on tmpfs,
> > 512mb ram, dualcore cpu,
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 03:09:58PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Here results of my test. Workload isn't very realistic, but at least it
threaded: compiling linux-3.6 with defconfig in 16 threads on tmpfs,
512mb ram, dualcore cpu, ordinary
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Here results of my test. Workload isn't very realistic, but at least it
threaded: compiling linux-3.6 with defconfig in 16 threads on tmpfs,
512mb ram, dualcore cpu, ordinary hard disk. (test script in attachment)
average
Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Here results of my test. Workload isn't very realistic, but at least it
threaded: compiling linux-3.6 with defconfig in 16 threads on tmpfs,
512mb ram, dualcore cpu, ordinary hard disk. (test script in attachment)
average
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins wrote:
> All I want to do right now, is suggest to Andrew that he hold Shaohua's
> patch back from 3.7 for the moment: I'll send a response to Sep 7th's
> mm-commits mail to suggest that - but no great disaster if he ignores me.
Just in the
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Here results of my test. Workload isn't very realistic, but at least it
> threaded: compiling linux-3.6 with defconfig in 16 threads on tmpfs,
> 512mb ram, dualcore cpu, ordinary hard disk. (test script in attachment)
>
> average results for ten
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Here results of my test. Workload isn't very realistic, but at least it
threaded: compiling linux-3.6 with defconfig in 16 threads on tmpfs,
512mb ram, dualcore cpu, ordinary hard disk. (test script in attachment)
average results for ten
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:09:58 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins hu...@google.com wrote:
All I want to do right now, is suggest to Andrew that he hold Shaohua's
patch back from 3.7 for the moment: I'll send a response to Sep 7th's
mm-commits mail to suggest that - but no great disaster if he ignores me.
Here results of my test. Workload isn't very realistic, but at least it
threaded: compiling linux-3.6 with defconfig in 16 threads on tmpfs,
512mb ram, dualcore cpu, ordinary hard disk. (test script in attachment)
average results for ten runs:
RA=3RA=0RA=1RA=2
Here results of my test. Workload isn't very realistic, but at least it
threaded: compiling linux-3.6 with defconfig in 16 threads on tmpfs,
512mb ram, dualcore cpu, ordinary hard disk. (test script in attachment)
average results for ten runs:
RA=3RA=0RA=1RA=2
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > If I boot with mem=900M (and 1G swap: either on hard disk sda, or
> > on Vertex II SSD sdb), and mmap anonymous 1000M (either MAP_PRIVATE,
> > or MAP_SHARED for a shmem object), and either cycle sequentially round
> >
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Hugh Dickins wrote:
If I boot with mem=900M (and 1G swap: either on hard disk sda, or
on Vertex II SSD sdb), and mmap anonymous 1000M (either MAP_PRIVATE,
or MAP_SHARED for a shmem object), and either cycle sequentially round
that making
Great job! I'm glad to see that you like my proof of concept patch.
I though that +/-10 logic can switch between border states smoothly.
But I have no strong experience in such kind of fuzzy-logic stuff,
so it's no surprise that my code fails in some cases.
(one note below about numbers)
Hugh
Great job! I'm glad to see that you like my proof of concept patch.
I though that +/-10 logic can switch between border states smoothly.
But I have no strong experience in such kind of fuzzy-logic stuff,
so it's no surprise that my code fails in some cases.
(one note below about numbers)
Hugh
Shaohua, Konstantin,
Sorry that it takes me so long to to reply on these swapin readahead
bounding threads, but I had to try some things out before jumping in,
and only found time to experiment last week.
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> This patch adds simple tracker for
Shaohua, Konstantin,
Sorry that it takes me so long to to reply on these swapin readahead
bounding threads, but I had to try some things out before jumping in,
and only found time to experiment last week.
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
This patch adds simple tracker for swapin
This patch adds simple tracker for swapin readahread effectiveness, and tunes
readahead cluster depending on it. It manage internal state [0..1024] and scales
readahead order between 0 and value from sysctl vm.page-cluster (3 by default).
Swapout and readahead misses decreases state, swapin and ra
This patch adds simple tracker for swapin readahread effectiveness, and tunes
readahead cluster depending on it. It manage internal state [0..1024] and scales
readahead order between 0 and value from sysctl vm.page-cluster (3 by default).
Swapout and readahead misses decreases state, swapin and ra
34 matches
Mail list logo
