From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH] Configurable reclaim batch size In-Reply-To: <1189812002.5826.31.camel@lappy> Message-ID: References: <1189812002.5826.31.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > It increases the lock hold times though. Otoh it might work out with the > lock placement. Yeah may be good for NUMA. > Do you have any numbers that show this is worthwhile? Tried to run AIM7 but the improvements are in the noise. I need a tests that really does large memory allocation and stresses the LRU. I could code something up but then Lee's patch addresses some of the same issues. Is there any standard test that shows LRU handling regressions? -- 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