Hi Jan, > > The observations for this box are > > > > - the 3s and 8s periods result in roughly the same adaption speed > > > > - the patch makes a really *big* difference in systems with big > > memory:bandwidth ratio. It's sweet! In comparison, the vanilla > > kernel adapts to new write bandwidth so much slower. > Yes, in this configuration the benefit of the new algorithm can be clearly > seen. Together with the results of previous test I'd say 3s period is the > best candidate. Agreed. I'm fine with the fixed 3s period. > Just I was thinking whether the period shouldn't be somehow set > automatically because I'm not convinced 3s will be right for everybody... > Maybe something based on how big fluctuations in completion rate we > observe. But it would be tricky given the load itself changes as well. So > for now we'll have to live with a hardwired period I guess. Yeah, simple fixed periods should be good enough. > Thanks for the tests Fengguang! So is anybody against merging this? No problem for me, when Peter's concern is addressed. Thanks! Fengguang -- 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>