Re: What to expect with the 2.6 VM

From: Martin J. Bligh (
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 09:24:03 EST

> First I ask, "What is this exercising?" That answer is largely process
> creation and destruction and SMP scheduling latency when there are very
> rapidly fluctuating imbalances.
> After observing that, the benchmark is flawed because
> (a) it doesn't run long enough to produce stable numbers
> (b) the results are apparently measured with gettimeofday(), which is
> wildly inaccurate for such short-lived phenomena

Bullshit. Use a maximal config file, and run it multiple times. I have
sub 0.5% variance.

> (c) large differences in performance appear to come about as a result
> of differing versions of common programs (i.e. gcc)

So use the same frigging gcc each time. Why you want to screw with
userspace at the same time as the kernel is a mystery to me. If you
change gcc, you're also changing what's compiling your kernel, so you'll
get different binaries - ergo the whole argument is fallacious anyway,
and *any* benchmarking you're doing is completely innacurrate.

>> if you want to change mlock to drop the pte_chains then it would
>> definitely make mlock a VM bypass, even if not as strong as the
>> remap_file_pages that bypass the vma layer too (not only the
>> pte/pte_chain side).
> Well, the thing is it's closer to the primitive. You're suggesting
> making remap_file_pages() both locked and unaligned with the vma, where
> it seems to me the real underlying mechanism is using the semantics of
> locked memory to avoid creating pte_chains. Bypassing vma's doesn't
> seem to be that exciting. There are only a couple of places where an
> assumption remap_file_pages() breaks matters, i.e. vmtruncate() and
> try_to_unmap_one_obj(), and that can be dodged with exhaustive search
> in the non-anobjrmap VM's and is naturally handled by chaining the
> distinct virtual addresses where pages are mapped against the page by
> the anobjrmap VM's.

If we just lock the damned things in memory, OR flag them at create
time (or at least before use), none of this is an issue anyway - we
get rid of all the conversion stuff. Seeing as this is mainly for big
DBs, I still don't see why mem locking it is a problem - no reason
for it to fuck up the rest of the VM.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 22:00:13 EST