On Thu 14-06-12 09:27:55, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 04:45:56PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 01-06-12 10:37:30, Michal Hocko wrote: > > [...] > > > More detailed statistics (max/min - the worst/best performance). > > > comparison (cong is 100%) comparison (page reclaim 100%) > > > max min median max min median > > > * ext3 > > > ** Write > > > 5M 171.20% 95.33% 98.70% 216.96% 101.99% 103.61% > > > 60M 97.56% 98.80% 104.51% 110.09% 100.11% 116.59% > > > 300M 99.76% 99.49% 99.35% 99.47% 99.89% 99.57% > > > 2G 99.52% 99.53% 99.52% 100.09% 99.07% 100.02% > > > > > > ** Read > > > 5M 35.37% 38.70% 39.09% 83.55% 89.85% 86.54% > > > 60M 89.70% 102.90% 102.00% 97.71% 101.91% 102.06% > > > 300M 92.38% 99.33% 99.14% 80.65% 98.39% 91.23% > > > 2G 90.07% 99.92% 100.38% 99.85% 100.75% 99.94% > > > > > > * Tmpfs > > > ** write > > > 5M 121.85% 99.69% 131.57% 219.22% 99.85% 135.30% > > > 60M 140.82% 99.70% 139.57% 98.14% 54.51% 73.65% > > > 300M 97.99% 99.54% 99.60% 99.29% 99.57% 99.32% > > > 2G 99.37% 99.62% 99.64% 98.72% 99.92% 99.18% > > > > > > ** read > > > 5M 85.44% 92.96% 88.92% 129.13% 101.54% 97.87% > > > 60M 64.41% 94.35% 88.10% 97.41% 95.75% 96.31% > > > 300M 116.89% 106.52% 120.84% 132.17% 104.39% 130.63% > > > 2G 86.27% 99.96% 87.47% 60.69% 99.44% 98.49% > > > > I have played with the patch below but it didn't show too much > > difference in the end or we end up doing even worse. > > > > Here is the no_patch/patched comparison: > > > > comparison (page reclaim is 100%) > > * ext3 avg max min median > > ** Write > > 5M 81.49% 77.53% 101.91% 76.60% > > 60M 98.60% 95.58% 101.40% 99.62% > > 300M 101.68% 102.05% 101.19% 101.73% > > 2G 102.20% 102.25% 102.12% 102.22% > > > > ** Read > > 5M 103.94% 105.14% 103.95% 103.32% > > 60M 105.26% 107.91% 103.15% 104.95% > > 300M 104.83% 107.86% 101.65% 104.88% > > 2G 102.67% 101.26% 102.83% 103.35% > > > > * Tmpfs > > ** Write > > 5M 107.68% 119.66% 105.26% 102.78% > > 60M 122.16% 138.51% 103.62% 121.09% > > 300M 101.03% 100.67% 101.11% 101.17% > > 2G 101.82% 101.66% 101.87% 101.87% > > > > ** Read > > 5M 102.47% 124.02% 98.05% 92.57% > > 60M 103.62% 121.03% 96.97% 96.52% > > 300M 98.90% 118.92% 102.64% 86.19% > > 2G 83.50% 76.34% 97.36% 81.92% > > > > I am not sure it really makes sense to play with the priority here. All > > the values we would end up with would be just wild guesses or mostly > > artificial workloads. So I think it makes some to go with the original > > version of the PageReclaim patch without any further fiddling with the > > priority. > > > > Is this sufficient to go with the patch or do people still have concerns > > which would block the patch from merging? > > No, let's go for it. It's a net improvement as it stands. > > Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks Johannes! Andrew, do you want me to resend the patch? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX s.r.o. Lihovarska 1060/12 190 00 Praha 9 Czech Republic -- 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>