Nick Piggin wrote:
quoted text
> On Wednesday 31 October 2007 18:41, Nick Piggin wrote:
>> On Wednesday 31 October 2007 18:52, Balbir Singh wrote:
>>> Reported-by: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
>>>
>>> The delay incurred in lock_page() should also be accounted in swap delay
>>> accounting
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Ah right, I forgot to resend this one, sorry. Thanks for remembering.
> 
> Although, I think I had a bit more detail in the changelog which
> I think should be kept.
> 
> Basically, swap delay accounting seems quite broken as of now,
> because what it is counting is the time required to allocate a new
> page and submit the IO, but not actually the time to perform the IO
> at all (which I'd expect will be significant, although possibly in
> some workloads the actual page allocation will dominate).
> 

This looks quite good to me. I'm off attending a wedding, I'll resend
the patch when I am back.

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
-
unsubscribe notice
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/