From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 9/9] make kvm mmu shrinker more aggressive Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:36:12 +0300 Message-ID: <4C47CABC.1080801@redhat.com> References: <20100615135518.BC244431@kernel.beaverton.ibm.com> <20100615135530.4565745D@kernel.beaverton.ibm.com> <4C189830.2070300@redhat.com> <1276701911.6437.16973.camel@nimitz> <1276876156.6437.23323.camel@nimitz> <4C1DCD1A.4010306@redhat.com> <1277224359.9782.21.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Hansen Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:18141 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751035Ab0GVEgR (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:36:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1277224359.9782.21.camel@nimitz> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/22/2010 07:32 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 11:11 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >>> That changes a few things. I bet all the contention we were seeing was >>> just from nr_to_scan=0 calls and not from actual shrink operations. >>> Perhaps we should just stop this set after patch 4. >>> >>> >> At the very least, we should re-measure things. >> > Sure. I'll go back to the folks that found this in the first place and > see how these patches affect the contention we were seeing. > Dave, how did those tests go? -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.