El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:03:19 +0200 (CEST), "Indan Zupancic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> Perhaps one of the reasons is that this is core kernel code. And that it
> isn't a new
> feature, but a performance improvement with doubtful trade-offs. The problem
> statement isn't clear either. It
El Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:03:19 +0200 (CEST), Indan Zupancic [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
Perhaps one of the reasons is that this is core kernel code. And that it
isn't a new
feature, but a performance improvement with doubtful trade-offs. The problem
statement isn't clear either. It seems like
Chris Snook wrote:
> Al Boldi wrote:
> > IMHO, what everybody agrees on, is that swap-prefetch has a positive
> > effect in some cases, and nobody can prove an adverse effect (excluding
> > power consumption). The reason for this positive effect is also crystal
> > clear: It prefetches from swap
Al Boldi wrote:
People wrote:
I believe the users who say their apps really do get paged back in
though, so suspect that's not the case.
Stopping the bush-circumference beating, I do not. -ck (and gentoo) have
this massive Calimero thing going among their users where people are
much less
On Sat, July 28, 2007 01:34, grundig wrote:
> El Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:06:14 -0700, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escribi�:
>
>> how do you know there will be other activity? You start the IO and that
>> basically blacks out the disk for 5 to 10 ms. If the "real" IO gets
>> submitted in
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 01:34 +0200, grundig wrote:
> El Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:06:14 -0700, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> escribió:
>
> > how do you know there will be other activity? You start the IO and that
> > basically blacks out the disk for 5 to 10 ms. If the "real" IO gets
> >
El Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:06:14 -0700, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> how do you know there will be other activity? You start the IO and that
> basically blacks out the disk for 5 to 10 ms. If the "real" IO gets
> submitted in that time you add latency. You cannot predict that IO
On Sat, July 28, 2007 00:06, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 23:51 +0200, Indan Zupanci
>> > also, they take up seek time (5 to 10 msec), so if you were to read
>> > something else at the time you get additional latency.
>>
>> If there's other disk activity swap prefetch shouldn't
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 23:51 +0200, Indan Zupanci
> > also, they take up seek time (5 to 10 msec), so if you were to read
> > something else at the time you get additional latency.
>
> If there's other disk activity swap prefetch shouldn't do much, so this isn't
> really true.
how do you know
On Fri, July 27, 2007 22:34, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, July 27, 2007 21:43, Al Boldi wrote:
>> IMHO, what everybody agrees on, is that swap-prefetch has a positive effect
>> in some cases, and nobody can prove an adverse effect (excluding power
>> consumption). The reason for this
> IMHO, what everybody agrees on, is that swap-prefetch has a positive effect
> in some cases, and nobody can prove an adverse effect (excluding power
> consumption). The reason for this positive effect is also crystal clear:
> It prefetches from swap on idle into free memory, ie: it doesn't
People wrote:
> >> I believe the users who say their apps really do get paged back in
> >> though, so suspect that's not the case.
> >
> > Stopping the bush-circumference beating, I do not. -ck (and gentoo) have
> > this massive Calimero thing going among their users where people are
> > much less
People wrote:
I believe the users who say their apps really do get paged back in
though, so suspect that's not the case.
Stopping the bush-circumference beating, I do not. -ck (and gentoo) have
this massive Calimero thing going among their users where people are
much less interested in
IMHO, what everybody agrees on, is that swap-prefetch has a positive effect
in some cases, and nobody can prove an adverse effect (excluding power
consumption). The reason for this positive effect is also crystal clear:
It prefetches from swap on idle into free memory, ie: it doesn't
On Fri, July 27, 2007 22:34, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, July 27, 2007 21:43, Al Boldi wrote:
IMHO, what everybody agrees on, is that swap-prefetch has a positive effect
in some cases, and nobody can prove an adverse effect (excluding power
consumption). The reason for this positive
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 23:51 +0200, Indan Zupanci
also, they take up seek time (5 to 10 msec), so if you were to read
something else at the time you get additional latency.
If there's other disk activity swap prefetch shouldn't do much, so this isn't
really true.
how do you know there will
On Sat, July 28, 2007 00:06, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 23:51 +0200, Indan Zupanci
also, they take up seek time (5 to 10 msec), so if you were to read
something else at the time you get additional latency.
If there's other disk activity swap prefetch shouldn't do much, so
El Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:06:14 -0700, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
how do you know there will be other activity? You start the IO and that
basically blacks out the disk for 5 to 10 ms. If the real IO gets
submitted in that time you add latency. You cannot predict that IO
On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 01:34 +0200, grundig wrote:
El Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:06:14 -0700, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
how do you know there will be other activity? You start the IO and that
basically blacks out the disk for 5 to 10 ms. If the real IO gets
submitted in that
On Sat, July 28, 2007 01:34, grundig wrote:
El Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:06:14 -0700, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribi�:
how do you know there will be other activity? You start the IO and that
basically blacks out the disk for 5 to 10 ms. If the real IO gets
submitted in that time you
Al Boldi wrote:
People wrote:
I believe the users who say their apps really do get paged back in
though, so suspect that's not the case.
Stopping the bush-circumference beating, I do not. -ck (and gentoo) have
this massive Calimero thing going among their users where people are
much less
Chris Snook wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:
IMHO, what everybody agrees on, is that swap-prefetch has a positive
effect in some cases, and nobody can prove an adverse effect (excluding
power consumption). The reason for this positive effect is also crystal
clear: It prefetches from swap on idle
22 matches
Mail list logo
