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 integrated into pre7, btw.
> > It is taking me 11 1/2
> > minutes to do this test (that's horrible). Any idea why?~
> Not really.
> If you have concurrent swapping activity, pre7 should improve the
> performance since all swap IO is asynchronous now. Only paths which really
> need to stop and wait for the swap data are doing it. (eg do_swap_page)
I'll grab virgin pre7 in a few.
> > (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?
Prevent cache collapse at all cost is #one. Matching deactivation rate
to launder/reclaim.. et al. Trying HARD to give PG_referenced a chance
to happen between aging scans .
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 pages are at the back of all lists, so all
of your valuable cache gets reclaimed before we write even one swap page.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 30 2001 - 21:00:15 EST