On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:36:52 +1000 David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com> wrote:THe good news is that direct reclaim is.. rare. And I also doubt XFS is unique here; imagine the whole stacking thing on x86-64 just the same ... I wonder if the direct reclaim path should avoid direct reclaim if the stack has only X bytes left. (where the value of X is... well we can figure that one out later) The rarity of direct reclaim during normal use ought to make this not a performance problem per se, and the benefits go further than just "XFS" or "4K stacks". -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@linux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org --
| Ingo Molnar | Re: x86: 4kstacks default |
| Stephen Rothwell | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
| Trent Piepho | [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX() asm code |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | [Bug #10919] [regression] display dimming is slow and laggy - Acer Travelmate 661lci |
git: | |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
| Andrew Morton | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
