On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 06:49:26PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 09:20:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I believe you're correct and it matches what was observed. I'm still > > > travelling and wireless is dirt but managed to queue a test using pmd_dirty > > > > Ok, thanks. > > > > I'm not entirely happy with that change, and I suspect the whole > > heuristic should be looked at much more (maybe it should also look at > > whether it's executable, for example), but it's a step in the right > > direction. > > > > I can follow up when I'm back in work properly. As you have already pulled > this in directly, can you also consider pulling in "mm: thp: return the > correct value for change_huge_pmd" please? The other two patches were very > minor can be resent through the normal paths later. TO close the loop here, now I'm back home and can run tests: config 3.19 4.0-rc1 4.0-rc4 defaults 8m08s 9m34s 9m14s -o ag_stride=-1 4m04s 4m38s 4m11s -o bhash=101073 6m04s 17m43s 7m35s -o ag_stride=-1,bhash=101073 4m54s 9m58s 7m50s It's better but there are still significant regressions, especially for the large memory footprint cases. I haven't had a chance to look at any stats or profiles yet, so I don't know yet whether this is still page fault related or some other problem.... Cheers, Dave -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
