On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:22:40PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Agreed. Any performance increase from THP is not likely to offset the
cost of lumpy reclaim.
Again agreed, I have no problem with lumpy reclaim being pushed aside.
I'm just less keen on it being disabled altogether. I have high hopes
for the series I'm working on that it can be extended slightly to suit
the needs of THP.
I do not believe they are related. Fortunately, I did not have to do a
full bisect but I know roughly what area the problem must be in. The
problem commit looks like d065bd81. I'm running further tests with it
reverted to see if it's true but it'll take a few hours to complete.
As I hopefully have pinned down the problem commit, I'm going to hold
off for another day to see can I get real data.
Nah, the first thing I did was eliminate being "my fault" :). It would
have surprised me because the patches in isolation worked fine. It
thought the inode changes might have had something to do with it so I
was chasing blind alleys for a while. Hopefully d065bd81 will prove to
be the real problem.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--