On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:45:52 +0300 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:22:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > I'm thinking that such a workload would be the above dd in parallel > > with a small app which touches the huge page and then exits, then gets > > executed again. That "small app" sounds realistic to me. Obviously > > one could exercise the zero page's refcount at higher frequency with a > > tight map/touch/unmap loop, but that sounds less realistic. It's worth > > trying that exercise as well though. > > > > Or do something else. But we should try to probe this code's > > worst-case behaviour, get an understanding of its effects and then > > decide whether any such workload is realisic enough to worry about. > > Okay, I'll try few memory pressure scenarios. Thanks. > Meanwhile, could you take patches 01-09? Patch 09 implements simpler > allocation scheme. It would be nice to get all other code tested. > Or do you see any other blocker? I think I would take them all, to get them tested while we're still poking at the code. It's a matter of getting my lazy ass onto reviewing the patches. The patches have a disturbing lack of reviewed-by's, acked-by's and tested-by's on them. Have any other of the MM lazy asses actually spent some time with them yet? -- 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>