Re: swap-prefetch: A smart way to make good use of idle resources (was: updatedb)

On Sat, July 28, 2007 01:34, grundig wrote:
El Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:06:14 -0700, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 add latency. You cannot predict that IO
happening or not happening.

If there hasn't be much IO for some time, it looks quite reasonable to expect
that there won't be more in the near future.

Good argument.

As most of heuristics can fail, but
then this is a feature mostly for desktops, not servers.

Bad argument. It doesn't matter for who the feature is intended, it matter
what it does and if it does it well or not. In this case, prefetching swap without
disturbing anything else.

There's an old saying that says something like "an open source project starts
dying when new people can't participate in the project no matter how hard
they try". It's hard to understand why there's so many people opposing to
this when other more controversial features are merged much faster, (like, fe.
the UIO driver framework).

Could people please stop this emotional crap non-argumentation? At best it reduces
the chance of swap-prefetch to be merged.

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 a natural enhancement, but is that enough
reason to merge it? Maybe, maybe not. But if slow swap-in is the problem, shouldn't
that be fixed instead of bypassed?

Yes, there are people that say that it works for them, but of those a lot claim
updatedb damage is fixed by it too, while that can't be true. And how many of those
people did test swap prefetch stand-alone? The ck kernel has other mm patches too,
perhaps those are the real goodies...

And there don't seem to be many people opposing swap prefetch either. A bunch seem
in favour of it, and others seem unconvinced.

Me, I don't know if it should be merged or not, it solves one very specific workload, and
nothing else (swap is used, and memory becomes free which won't be used in the near
future). All in all it seems good, but doubtful, and when in doubt, don't merge.

Greetings,

Indan


-
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/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tuple parameter unpacking in 3.x
    ... Martin Geisler wrote: ... thought that this feature was unused and didn't matter. ... reasons why maintaining the feature in the face of other arguments options would be a nuisance. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Variable length/precision formats?
    ... particular suggestion for standardization. ... convinced me that they were wrong (or just resisting for other reasons), ... proposal for other reasons - I don't consider the feature well designed ... convinced enough of those vendors to support it this time around. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: 500.000 AMD64s shipped...
    ... is always a benchmark to make your case, no matter what it might be. ... > The fact that Madison has 50 bit addressing and Opteron has ... Thats a feature that does matter ... > Itanium despite being saddled with 1/8 the registers. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: MacBook Air
    ... Dimensions really matter a great deal ... Not something about function; just a design choice. ... sacrificing a feature or behavior. ... and it's a flip phone. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: where are you microsoft? why still no wifi activesync 4??
    ... I agree that this is an important feature. ... over activesync to regular pcs is "security" reasons. ... of a security risk here than a bunch of open TCP ports... ...
    (microsoft.public.pocketpc)