Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > If vm_enough_memory is being heavily hit as well, it implies that this > workload is mmap-intensive which is pretty inefficient in itself. I Saw it with tmpfs originally. No need to be mmap intensive. Just do lots of IOs on tmpfs. > guess it would also apply to workloads that are malloc-intensive for > large buffers but I'd expect the cache line bounces to only dominate if > there was little or no computation on the resulting buffers. I think you severly underestimate the costs of bouncing cache lines on >2S. > As a result, I wonder how realistic is this test workload and who useful > fixing this problem is in general? It's kind of bad if tmpfs doesn't scale. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>