On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:46:47AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > It'd be interesting but for the purposes of this patch I think it > would be more useful to see the results of some benchmark that is vmap > intensive. Something directory intensive running on XFS should do the > job just to confirm no regression, right? A profile might indicate > how often we end up scanning the full list, finding it dirty and > calling new_vmap_block but even if something odd showed up there, > it would be a new patch. Note that the default mkfs.xfs options will not trigger any vmap calls at runtime. You'll need a filesystem with a large directory block size to trigger heavy vmap usage. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>