From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762150AbXGYI2u (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 04:28:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753263AbXGYI2l (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 04:28:41 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:59227 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753042AbXGYI2k (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jul 2007 04:28:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:28:22 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Rene Herman Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, david@lang.hm, Nick Piggin , Ray Lee , Jesper Juhl , Andrew Morton , ck list , Paul Jackson , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 Message-ID: <20070725082822.GA13098@elte.hu> References: <46A57068.3070701@yahoo.com.au> <2c0942db0707232153j3670ef31kae3907dff1a24cb7@mail.gmail.com> <46A58B49.3050508@yahoo.com.au> <2c0942db0707240915h56e007e3l9110e24a065f2e73@mail.gmail.com> <46A6CC56.6040307@yahoo.com.au> <46A6D7D2.4050708@gmail.com> <46A6DFFD.9030202@gmail.com> <30701.1185347660@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <46A7074B.50608@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46A7074B.50608@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Rene Herman wrote: > Regardless, I'll stand by "[by disabling updatedb] the problem will > for a large part be solved" as I expect approximately 94.372 percent > of Linux desktop users couldn't care less about locate. i think that approach is illogical: because Linux mis-handled a mixed workload the answer is to ... remove a portion of that workload? To bring your approach to the extreme: what if Linux sucked at running more than two CPU-intense tasks at once. Most desktop users dont do that, so a probably larger than 94.372 percent of Linux desktop users couldn't care less about a proper scheduler. Still, anyone who builds a kernel (the average desktop user wont do that) while using firefox will attest to the fact that it's quite handy that the Linux scheduler can handle mixed workloads pretty well. now, it might be the case that this mixed VM/VFS workload cannot be handled any more intelligently - but that wasnt your argument! The swap-prefetch patch certainly tried to do things more intelligently and the test-case (measurement app) Con provided showed visible improvements in swap-in latency. (and a good number of people posted those results) Ingo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:28:22 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 Message-ID: <20070725082822.GA13098@elte.hu> References: <46A57068.3070701@yahoo.com.au> <2c0942db0707232153j3670ef31kae3907dff1a24cb7@mail.gmail.com> <46A58B49.3050508@yahoo.com.au> <2c0942db0707240915h56e007e3l9110e24a065f2e73@mail.gmail.com> <46A6CC56.6040307@yahoo.com.au> <46A6D7D2.4050708@gmail.com> <46A6DFFD.9030202@gmail.com> <30701.1185347660@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <46A7074B.50608@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46A7074B.50608@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Rene Herman Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, david@lang.hm, Nick Piggin , Ray Lee , Jesper Juhl , Andrew Morton , ck list , Paul Jackson , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: * Rene Herman wrote: > Regardless, I'll stand by "[by disabling updatedb] the problem will > for a large part be solved" as I expect approximately 94.372 percent > of Linux desktop users couldn't care less about locate. i think that approach is illogical: because Linux mis-handled a mixed workload the answer is to ... remove a portion of that workload? To bring your approach to the extreme: what if Linux sucked at running more than two CPU-intense tasks at once. Most desktop users dont do that, so a probably larger than 94.372 percent of Linux desktop users couldn't care less about a proper scheduler. Still, anyone who builds a kernel (the average desktop user wont do that) while using firefox will attest to the fact that it's quite handy that the Linux scheduler can handle mixed workloads pretty well. now, it might be the case that this mixed VM/VFS workload cannot be handled any more intelligently - but that wasnt your argument! The swap-prefetch patch certainly tried to do things more intelligently and the test-case (measurement app) Con provided showed visible improvements in swap-in latency. (and a good number of people posted those results) Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org