Re: [PATCH] mm: do not drain pagevecs for mlock
From: KOSAKI Motohiro
Date: Fri Dec 30 2011 - 05:14:42 EST
One more thing.
>> Because your test program is too artificial. 20sec/100000times =
>> 200usec. And your
>> program repeat mlock and munlock the exact same address. so, yes, if
>> lru_add_drain_all() is removed, it become near no-op. but it's
>> worthless comparision.
>> none of any practical program does such strange mlock usage.
> yes, I should say it is artificial. But mlock did cause the problem in
> our product system and perf shows that the mlock uses the system time
> much more than others. That's the reason we created this program to test
> whether mlock really sucks. And we compared the result with
> rhel5(2.6.18) which runs much much faster.
rhel5 is faster because it doesn't have proper mlock implementation.
then it has a lot
of mlock related performance issue. We optimized PAGE_MLOCK thing for
number of mlock call are rare and number of memory reclaim are a lot.
That's the reason why we haven't got any complication of mlock thing.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/