Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: free swp_entry in madvise_free

Bump up. On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:20:35AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > When I test below piece of code with 12 processes(ie, 512M * 12 = 6G consume) > on my (3G ram + 12 cpu + 8G swap, the madvise_free is siginficat slower > (ie, 2x times) than madvise_dontneed. > > loop = 5; > mmap(512M); >

Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: free swp_entry in madvise_free

Bump up. On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:20:35AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: When I test below piece of code with 12 processes(ie, 512M * 12 = 6G consume) on my (3G ram + 12 cpu + 8G swap, the madvise_free is siginficat slower (ie, 2x times) than madvise_dontneed. loop = 5; mmap(512M); while

[PATCH 1/4] mm: free swp_entry in madvise_free

When I test below piece of code with 12 processes(ie, 512M * 12 = 6G consume) on my (3G ram + 12 cpu + 8G swap, the madvise_free is siginficat slower (ie, 2x times) than madvise_dontneed. loop = 5; mmap(512M); while (loop--) { memset(512M); madvise(MADV_FREE or MADV_DONTNEED); }

[PATCH 1/4] mm: free swp_entry in madvise_free

When I test below piece of code with 12 processes(ie, 512M * 12 = 6G consume) on my (3G ram + 12 cpu + 8G swap, the madvise_free is siginficat slower (ie, 2x times) than madvise_dontneed. loop = 5; mmap(512M); while (loop--) { memset(512M); madvise(MADV_FREE or MADV_DONTNEED); }