On 5/10/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Huh? You already stated one version of it above, namely updatedb. But
So a swapping problem with updatedb should be unusual and we'd like to see
if we can fix it without resorting to prefetching.
I know the theory behind swap prefetching,
Ray Lee wrote:
>> Huh? You already stated one version of it above, namely updatedb. But
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:04:54PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> So a swapping problem with updatedb should be unusual and we'd like to see
> if we can fix it without resorting to prefetching.
> I know the
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
> On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You said it helped with the updatedb problem. That says we should
look at
>> why it is going bad first, and for example improve use-once
algorithms.
>>
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You said it helped with the updatedb problem. That says we should
look at
why it is going bad first, and for example improve use-once
algorithms.
After we do
Ray Lee wrote:
Huh? You already stated one version of it above, namely updatedb. But
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 05:04:54PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
So a swapping problem with updatedb should be unusual and we'd like to see
if we can fix it without resorting to prefetching.
I know the theory
On 5/10/07, Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Huh? You already stated one version of it above, namely updatedb. But
So a swapping problem with updatedb should be unusual and we'd like to see
if we can fix it without resorting to prefetching.
I know the theory behind swap prefetching, and
On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
> On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You said it helped with the updatedb problem. That says we should look at
>> why it is going bad first, and for example improve use-once algorithms.
>> After we do that, then
On Thursday 10 May 2007 13:48, Ray Lee wrote:
> On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You said it helped with the updatedb problem. That says we should look at
> > why it is going bad first, and for example improve use-once algorithms.
> > After we do that, then swap prefetching
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You said it helped with the updatedb problem. That says we should look at
why it is going bad first, and for example improve use-once algorithms.
After we do that, then swap prefetching might still help, which is fine.
Nick,
On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You said it helped with the updatedb problem. That says we should look at
why it is going bad first, and for example improve use-once algorithms.
After we do that, then swap prefetching might still help, which is fine.
Nick, if you're
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thursday 10 May 2007 10:05, Nick Piggin wrote:
I'm not the gatekeeper and it is completely up to you whether you want
to work on something or not... but I'm sure you understand where I was
coming from when I suggested it doesn't get merged yet.
No matter how you spin
On Thursday 10 May 2007 10:05, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Well how about that? That was the difference with a swap _file_ as I
> > said, but I went ahead and checked with a swap partition as I used to
> > have. I didn't notice, but somewhere in the last few months, swap
> >
Con Kolivas wrote:
Well how about that? That was the difference with a swap _file_ as I said, but
I went ahead and checked with a swap partition as I used to have. I didn't
notice, but somewhere in the last few months, swap prefetch code itself being
unchanged for a year, seems to have been
On Saturday 05 May 2007 18:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 04 May 2007 22:10, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > On Friday 04 May 2007 18:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > agreed. Con, IIRC you wrote a testcase for this, right? Could you
> > > please send us the results of that testing?
> >
> > Yes, sorry it's
On Saturday 05 May 2007 18:42, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 04 May 2007 22:10, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 04 May 2007 18:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
agreed. Con, IIRC you wrote a testcase for this, right? Could you
please send us the results of that testing?
Yes, sorry it's a crappy test
Con Kolivas wrote:
Well how about that? That was the difference with a swap _file_ as I said, but
I went ahead and checked with a swap partition as I used to have. I didn't
notice, but somewhere in the last few months, swap prefetch code itself being
unchanged for a year, seems to have been
On Thursday 10 May 2007 10:05, Nick Piggin wrote:
Con Kolivas wrote:
Well how about that? That was the difference with a swap _file_ as I
said, but I went ahead and checked with a swap partition as I used to
have. I didn't notice, but somewhere in the last few months, swap
prefetch code
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Thursday 10 May 2007 10:05, Nick Piggin wrote:
I'm not the gatekeeper and it is completely up to you whether you want
to work on something or not... but I'm sure you understand where I was
coming from when I suggested it doesn't get merged yet.
No matter how you spin
On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You said it helped with the updatedb problem. That says we should look at
why it is going bad first, and for example improve use-once algorithms.
After we do that, then swap prefetching might still help, which is fine.
Nick, if you're
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You said it helped with the updatedb problem. That says we should look at
why it is going bad first, and for example improve use-once algorithms.
After we do that, then swap prefetching might still help, which is fine.
Nick, if
On Thursday 10 May 2007 13:48, Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You said it helped with the updatedb problem. That says we should look at
why it is going bad first, and for example improve use-once algorithms.
After we do that, then swap prefetching might still
On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ray Lee wrote:
On 5/9/07, Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You said it helped with the updatedb problem. That says we should look at
why it is going bad first, and for example improve use-once algorithms.
After we do that, then swap
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 04 May 2007 18:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
agreed. Con, IIRC you wrote a testcase for this, right? Could you please
send us the results of that testing?
Yes, sorry it's a crappy test app but works on 32bit. Timed with prefetch
disabled and then enabled swap prefetch
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i'm wondering about swap-prefetch:
Being able to config all these core heuristics changes is really not
that much of a positive. The fact that we might _need_ to config
something out, and double the configuration range isn't too
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'm wondering about swap-prefetch:
Being able to config all these core heuristics changes is really not
that much of a positive. The fact that we might _need_ to config
something out, and double the configuration range isn't too
Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 04 May 2007 18:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
agreed. Con, IIRC you wrote a testcase for this, right? Could you please
send us the results of that testing?
Yes, sorry it's a crappy test app but works on 32bit. Timed with prefetch
disabled and then enabled swap prefetch
Con Kolivas wrote:
> Here's a better swap prefetch tester. Instructions in file.
>
> Machine with 2GB ram and 2GB swapfile
>
> Prefetch disabled:
> ./sp_tester
> Ram 2060352000 Swap 197342
> Total ram to be malloced: 3047062000 bytes
> Starting first malloc of 1523531000 bytes
> Starting 1st
2007/5/5, Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[cut]
Here's a better swap prefetch tester. Instructions in file.
The system should be leaved totally inactive for the test duration (10m) right?
Regards,
~ Antonio
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
2007/5/5, Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[cut]
Here's a better swap prefetch tester. Instructions in file.
The system should be leaved totally inactive for the test duration (10m) right?
Regards,
~ Antonio
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body
Con Kolivas wrote:
Here's a better swap prefetch tester. Instructions in file.
Machine with 2GB ram and 2GB swapfile
Prefetch disabled:
./sp_tester
Ram 2060352000 Swap 197342
Total ram to be malloced: 3047062000 bytes
Starting first malloc of 1523531000 bytes
Starting 1st read of
On Friday 04 May 2007 22:10, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Friday 04 May 2007 18:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > agreed. Con, IIRC you wrote a testcase for this, right? Could you please
> > send us the results of that testing?
>
> Yes, sorry it's a crappy test app but works on 32bit. Timed with prefetch
>
On Friday 04 May 2007 22:10, Con Kolivas wrote:
On Friday 04 May 2007 18:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
agreed. Con, IIRC you wrote a testcase for this, right? Could you please
send us the results of that testing?
Yes, sorry it's a crappy test app but works on 32bit. Timed with prefetch
disabled
On Friday 04 May 2007 18:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> agreed. Con, IIRC you wrote a testcase for this, right? Could you please
> send us the results of that testing?
Yes, sorry it's a crappy test app but works on 32bit. Timed with prefetch
disabled and then enabled swap prefetch saves ~5 seconds on
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here were some of my concerns, and where our discussion got up to.
Yes. Perhaps it just doesn't help with the updatedb thing. Or
maybe with normal system activity we get enough free pages to kick
the thing off and running.
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i'm wondering about swap-prefetch:
> Being able to config all these core heuristics changes is really not
> that much of a positive. The fact that we might _need_ to config
> something out, and double the configuration range isn't too pleasing.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- If replying, please be sure to cc the appropriate individuals.
Please also consider rewriting the Subject: to something
appropriate.
i'm wondering about swap-prefetch:
Well I had some issues with it that I don't think
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- If replying, please be sure to cc the appropriate individuals.
Please also consider rewriting the Subject: to something
appropriate.
i'm wondering about swap-prefetch:
Well I had some issues with it that I don't think were
* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'm wondering about swap-prefetch:
Being able to config all these core heuristics changes is really not
that much of a positive. The fact that we might _need_ to config
something out, and double the configuration range isn't too pleasing.
Well, to
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here were some of my concerns, and where our discussion got up to.
Yes. Perhaps it just doesn't help with the updatedb thing. Or
maybe with normal system activity we get enough free pages to kick
the thing off and running.
On Friday 04 May 2007 18:52, Ingo Molnar wrote:
agreed. Con, IIRC you wrote a testcase for this, right? Could you please
send us the results of that testing?
Yes, sorry it's a crappy test app but works on 32bit. Timed with prefetch
disabled and then enabled swap prefetch saves ~5 seconds on
On Friday 04 May 2007 01:54, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - If replying, please be sure to cc the appropriate individuals.
> > Please also consider rewriting the Subject: to something
> > appropriate.
> i've reviewed it once again and in the
On 03/05/07, Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 03/05/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > - If replying, please be sure to cc the appropriate individuals.
> > Please also consider rewriting the Subject: to something
Hi,
On 03/05/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - If replying, please be sure to cc the appropriate individuals.
> Please also consider rewriting the Subject: to something
> appropriate.
i'm wondering about swap-prefetch:
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - If replying, please be sure to cc the appropriate individuals.
> Please also consider rewriting the Subject: to something
> appropriate.
i'm wondering about swap-prefetch:
mm-implement-swap-prefetching.patch
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- If replying, please be sure to cc the appropriate individuals.
Please also consider rewriting the Subject: to something
appropriate.
i'm wondering about swap-prefetch:
mm-implement-swap-prefetching.patch
Hi,
On 03/05/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- If replying, please be sure to cc the appropriate individuals.
Please also consider rewriting the Subject: to something
appropriate.
i'm wondering about swap-prefetch:
On 03/05/07, Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On 03/05/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- If replying, please be sure to cc the appropriate individuals.
Please also consider rewriting the Subject: to something
On Friday 04 May 2007 01:54, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- If replying, please be sure to cc the appropriate individuals.
Please also consider rewriting the Subject: to something
appropriate.
i've reviewed it once again and in the !CONFIG_SWAP_PREFETCH
48 matches
Mail list logo
