Re: [PATCH] Configurable reclaim batch size

[Balbir Singh]

Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter
> <clameter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Might, I'd just like a _little_ justification for an extra tunable.
> 
>>> 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?
> 
> hehe, I wish. I was just hoping you'd done this patch as a result of an
> actual problem and not a hunch.

Please do let me know if someone finds a good standard test for it or a
way to stress reclaim. I've heard AIM7 come up often, but never been
able to push it much. I should retry.

-- 
	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center
	IBM, ISTL
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/