On Wed 18-01-17 12:23:54, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 09:37:31 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue 17-01-17 15:45:39, Andrew Morton wrote: > > [...] > > > From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: mm-swap-add-cluster-lock-v5 > > > > I assume you are going to fold this into the original patch. Do you > > think it would make sense to have it in a separate patch along with > > the reasoning provided via email? > > It should be OK - the v5 changelog (which I shall use for the folded > patch, as usual) has > > : Compared with a previous implementation using bit_spin_lock, the > : sequential swap out throughput improved about 3.2%. Test was done on a > : Xeon E5 v3 system. The swap device used is a RAM simulated PMEM > : (persistent memory) device. To test the sequential swapping out, the test > : case created 32 processes, which sequentially allocate and write to the > : anonymous pages until the RAM and part of the swap device is used. But there are more reasons than the throughput improvements. I would consider the full lockdep support and fairness more important. The drawback is the memory footprint which should be mentioned as well. That being said, I will not insist, I just thought that this would be a nice incremental change and easier to understand later rather than searching the archives... So take all this as my 2c... -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>