On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 01:49:33PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 06/03/2017 12:48, Chris Wilson wrote: > >For the moment, yes :) This was a quick hack to hide a regression - the > > Oh it was a real regression and not just an optimisation for a > strange client behaviour? You should add a Fixes: tag then. And > explain in the commit what it was (the regression). I was having that debate with myself in another thread. userspace is clearly broken, but this excerbates the damage. > >real bug fix will be breaking struct_mutex out of the shrinker, I think, > >and there's some nasty behaviour to resolve when we do hit the shrinker > >the whole object page-in/page-out behaviour is much, much slower than > >what should be the equivalent with individual pages via shmemfs. The > >bonus here is that shmemfs can avoid clearing/swapping-in the page if > >knows it will be completely overwritten, which makes the patch useful on > >its own merit. > > So in this particular case is that becuase it is swapping out even > the untouched pages? And it started doing that recently after some > commit or what? Remember when I said that nobody would touch pages without using them, (and so could defer the update for the shrinker until we had the struct_mutex) and certainly not 16GiB of written-but-unused pages on a small box? libva happened. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
