From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756161Ab0FVQdK (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:33:10 -0400 Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:56304 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750944Ab0FVQdI (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:33:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 9/9] make kvm mmu shrinker more aggressive From: Dave Hansen To: Avi Kivity Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <4C1DCD1A.4010306@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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ANSI_X3.4-1968" Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:32:39 -0700 Message-ID: <1277224359.9782.21.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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