From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: zam, please discuss this Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:29:48 -0700 Message-ID: <40DA58BC.1060203@namesys.com> References: <40D8EB0D.6050109@namesys.com> <20040623063049.GA5080@backtop.namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20040623063049.GA5080@backtop.namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Alex Zarochentsev Cc: ReiserFS List Alex Zarochentsev wrote: >On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 07:29:33PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > > >>http://www.namesys.com/intbenchmarks/mongo/04.05.04/256MB.RAM/comparison/smart-8k.noENTD.vs.ENTD/comp-ENTD.vs.noENTD.html >> >> > >Because direct page reclaiming (when a thread which needs memory does >try_to_relase_page() by itself) is better then indirect one (through >ENTD or whatever page reclaiming daemon). It is why Linux uses direct >page reclaiming not indirect. > > > I apologize to zam, I meant to only cc this to reiserfs-dev. I think this performance loss can be overcome, and needs to be overcome so we can eliminate emergency flush and get good iozone results. I should note though that Andrew Morton thinks iozone is a benchmark that does things that no application does (dirtying massive amounts of mmap'd pages). I am curious as to whether the sysadmins on the list would agree with that (Andrew may be right)....