Re: objrmap and vmtruncate

From: Andrew Morton (akpm@digeo.com)
Date: Fri Apr 04 2003 - 22:22:01 EST


"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
> > objrmap does not seem to help. Page clustering might, but is unlikely to
> > be enabled on the machines which actually care about the overhead.
>
> eh? Not sure what you mean by that. It helped massively ...
> diffprofile from kernbench showed:
>
> -4666 -74.9% page_add_rmap
> -10666 -92.0% page_remove_rmap
>
> I'd say that about an 85% reduction in cost is pretty damned fine ;-)
> And that was about a 20% overall reduction in the system time for the
> test too ... that was all for partial objrmap (file backed, not anon).
>

In the test I use (my patch management scripts, which is basically bash
forking its brains out) objrmap reclaims only 30-50% of the rmap CPU
overhead.

Maybe you had a very high sharing level.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
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 07 2003 - 22:00:25 EST