On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> virgin pre7 +Rik
> real11m44.088s
> user7m57.720s
> sys 0m36.420s
> None of them make much difference.
Good, then I suppose we can put in the cleanup from my code, since
it makes the balancing a bit more predictable and should keep the
ba
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Have you looked at "free_pte()"? I don't like that function, and it might
> make a difference. There are several small nits with it:
snip
> I _think_ the logic should be something along the lines of: "freeing the
> page amounts to a implied down-agin
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > I decided to take a break from pondering input and see why the thing
> > ran itself into the ground. Methinks I was sent the wrooong patch :)
>
> Mike,
>
> Please apply this patch on top of Rik's v2 pa
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > > > > No. It livelocked on me with almost all active pages exausted.
> > > > > Misspoke.. I didn't try the two mixed. Rik's patch livelocked me.
>
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > > > No. It livelocked on me with almost all active pages exausted.
> > > > Misspoke.. I didn't try the two mixed. Rik's patch livelocked me.
> > >
> > > Interesting. The semantics of my patch are pract
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > > No. It livelocked on me with almost all active pages exausted.
> > > Misspoke.. I didn't try the two mixed. Rik's patch livelocked me.
> >
> > Interesting. The semantics of my patch are practically the same as
> > those of the stock kernel ...
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > 1. pagecache is becoming swapcache and must be aged before anything is
> > > done. Meanwhile we're calling refill_inactive_scan() so fast that noone
>
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > > limit the runtime of refill_inactive_scan(). This is similar to Rik's
> > > > reclaim-limit+aging-tuning patch to linux-mm yesterday. could you try
> >
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > 1. pagecache is becoming swapcache and must be aged before anything is
> > done. Meanwhile we're calling refill_inactive_scan() so fast that noone
> > has a chance to touch a page. Age becomes a simple
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On the other hand, to offset some of these, we actually count the page
> accessed _twice_ sometimes: we count it on lookup, and we count it when we
> see the accessed bit in vmscan.c. Which results in some pages getting aged
> up twice for just one a
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > 2.4.4.pre7.virgin
> > real11m33.589s
> > user7m57.790s
> > sys 0m38.730s
> >
> > 2.4.4.pre7.sillyness
> > real9m30.336s
> > user7m55.270s
> > sys 0m38.510s
>
> Well, I actually
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > limit the runtime of refill_inactive_scan(). This is similar to Rik's
> > > reclaim-limit+aging-tuning patch to linux-mm yesterday. could you try
> > > Rik's patch with your patch except this jiffies h
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 1. pagecache is becoming swapcache and must be aged before anything is
> done. Meanwhile we're calling refill_inactive_scan() so fast that noone
> has a chance to touch a page. Age becomes a simple counter.. I think.
> When you hit a big surge, swap
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> 2.4.4.pre7.virgin
> real11m33.589s
> user7m57.790s
> sys 0m38.730s
>
> 2.4.4.pre7.sillyness
> real9m30.336s
> user7m55.270s
> sys 0m38.510s
Well, I actually like parts of this. The "always swap out current mm" one
looks rat
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > (i cannot see how this chunk affects the VM, AFAICS this too makes the
> > > zapping of the cache less agressive.)
> >
> > (more folks get snagged on write.. they can't eat cache so fast)
>
> What abo
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > (i cannot see how this chunk affects the VM, AFAICS this too makes the
> > zapping of the cache less agressive.)
>
> (more folks get snagged on write.. they can't eat cache so fast)
What about GFP_BUFFER allocations ? :)
I suspect the jiffies hac
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > limit the runtime of refill_inactive_scan(). This is similar to Rik's
> > reclaim-limit+aging-tuning patch to linux-mm yesterday. could you try
> > Rik's patch with your patch except this jiffies hack, does it still
> > achieve the same improvement?
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Have you tried to tune SWAP_SHIFT and the priority used inside swap_out()
> to see if you can make pte deactivation less aggressive ?
Many many many times.. no dice.
(more agressive is much better for surge regulation.. power brakes!)
-Mike
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > 2.4.4.pre7.virgin
> > real11m33.589s
>
> > 2.4.4.pre7.sillyness
> > real9m30.336s
>
> very interesting. Looks like there are still reserves in the VM, for heavy
> workloads. (and swapping is all abo
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 2.4.4.pre7.virgin
> real11m33.589s
> 2.4.4.pre7.sillyness
> real9m30.336s
very interesting. Looks like there are still reserves in the VM, for heavy
workloads. (and swapping is all about heavy workloads.)
it would be interesting to see why
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > > (I can get it to under 9 with MUCH extremely ugly tinkering. I've done
> > > this enough to know that I _should_ be able to do 8 1/2 minutes ~easily)
> >
> > Which kind of changes you're doing to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > More of a question. Neither Ingo's nor your patch makes any
> > difference on my UP box (128mb PIII/500) doing make -j30. [...]
>
> (the patch Marcelo sent is the -B3 patch plus Linus' suggested async
>
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > (I can get it to under 9 with MUCH extremely ugly tinkering. I've done
> > this enough to know that I _should_ be able to do 8 1/2 minutes ~easily)
>
> Which kind of changes you're doing to get better performance on this test?
:)
2.4.4.pre7.virgi
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> More of a question. Neither Ingo's nor your patch makes any
> difference on my UP box (128mb PIII/500) doing make -j30. [...]
(the patch Marcelo sent is the -B3 patch plus Linus' suggested async
interface cleanup, so it should be functionally equiva
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > Comments?
> >
> > More of a question. Neither Ingo's nor your patch makes any difference
> > on my UP box (128mb PIII/500) doing make -j30.
>
> Well, my patch incorporates Ingo's patch.
>
> It is now
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > Comments?
>
> More of a question. Neither Ingo's nor your patch makes any difference
> on my UP box (128mb PIII/500) doing make -j30.
Well, my patch incorporates Ingo's patch.
It is now integrated into pre7, btw.
> It is taking me 11 1/2
>
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Basically, I don't want to mix synchronous and asynchronous
> > interfaces. Everything should be asynchronous by default, and waiting
> > should be explicit.
>
> The following patch changes all swap IO
Resending...
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:28:38 -0300 (BRT)
From: Marcelo Tosatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Linux Kernel List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL
28 matches
Mail list logo
