Re: [dm-devel] Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
- From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:25:41 +0900
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:18:01 -0700
Balbir Singh <balbir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Kamezawa-San, I am not dead against it, but I would provide a knob/control pointmake sense.
for system administrator to decide if movement is important for applications,
then let them do so (like force_empty).
I'll post in next Monday. It's obvious that I should do more tests/fixes...Anyway what's next for me is
1. fix current discussion to remove page->page_cgroup pointer.
2. reduce locks.
Are you planning on reposting these. I've been trying other approaches at my end
About performance, I'll give it up at some reasonable point.
1. Use radix tree per-node per-zoneMy patch has (many) bugs. Severals are fixed but there will be still ;)
2. Use radix trees only for 32 bit systems
3. Depend on CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORY_PRESENT and build a sparse data structure and
use pre-allocation
I've posted (1) and I'll take a look at your patches as well
SwapCache beats me again because it easily reuse uncharged pages...
BTW why do you like radix-tree ? It's not very good for our purpose.
FLATMEM support for small system will be easy work.
3. support swap and swap-cache.
I think algorithm for (1), (2) is now getting smart.
Yes, it is getting better
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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/
- References:
- Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
- From: Andrea Righi
- Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
- From: Vivek Goyal
- Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
- From: Andrea Righi
- Re: [dm-devel] Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
- From: Hirokazu Takahashi
- Re: [dm-devel] Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
- From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
- Re: [dm-devel] Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
- From: Balbir Singh
- Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
- Prev by Date: Re: Unified tracing buffer
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] atmel_serial: update the powersave handler to match serial core
- Previous by thread: Re: [dm-devel] Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
- Next by thread: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [dm-devel] Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|