lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [dm-devel] Re: dm-ioband + bio-cgroup benchmarks
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:18:01 -0700
Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Kamezawa-San, I am not dead against it, but I would provide a knob/control point
> for system administrator to decide if movement is important for applications,
> then let them do so (like force_empty).
>
make sense.


> > 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
>
I'll post in next Monday. It's obvious that I should do more tests/fixes...
About performance, I'll give it up at some reasonable point.

> 1. Use radix tree per-node per-zone
> 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
>
My patch has (many) bugs. Severals are fixed but there will be still ;)
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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-20 11:21    [W:0.094 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site