Re: please revert bogus patch to vmscan.c

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 11:34:10AM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> I'm contending is that the Real World difference between the correct 
> version of the optimization will have no significant performance effects 
> compared to the incorrect version that you and davem are so gleefully 
> advocating.  This means not running through "bullshit" benchmarks that 
> test one and only one thing, but running apps that actually put memory 
> pressure on the system (Oracle does so quite nicely using a filesystem 
> without O_DIRECT) which in turn causes page scanning (aka the clearing 
> of the referenced bit which is *THE* code that is being contested) but 
> should not cause swap out.  To me, this is just part of the methodology 
> of being thorough in testing the effects of changes to the VM subsystem.

There should be no relevant pagetable scanning during those tests, and
the few bits that can get unmapped have lots of time to get mapped in
again from the cache with a minor fault, IMHO there's no way such tlb
flush removal can make a difference in a DBMS workload on a sanely setup
machine, I'm amazed you think it can make a difference.

Andrea