Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >>> It increases the lock hold times though. Otoh it might work out with the >>> lock placement. >> Yeah may be good for NUMA. > > Might, I'd just like a _little_ justification for an extra tunable. > >>> Do you have any numbers that show this is worthwhile? >> Tried to run AIM7 but the improvements are in the noise. I need a tests >> that really does large memory allocation and stresses the LRU. I could >> code something up but then Lee's patch addresses some of the same issues. >> Is there any standard test that shows LRU handling regressions? > > hehe, I wish. I was just hoping you'd done this patch as a result of an > actual problem and not a hunch.
Please do let me know if someone finds a good standard test for it or a way to stress reclaim. I've heard AIM7 come up often, but never been able to push it much. I should retry. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/