Jesper Juhl wrote:
On 10/07/07, Con Kolivas <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tuesday 10 July 2007 18:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
> When replying, please rewrite the subject suitably and try to Cc: the
> appropriate developer(s).
~swap prefetch
Nick's only remaining issue which I could remotely identify was to
make it
cpuset aware:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=117875557014098&w=2
as discussed with Paul Jackson it was cpuset aware:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=117895463120843&w=2
I fixed all bugs I could find and improved it as much as I could last
kernel
cycle.
Put me and the users out of our misery and merge it now or delete it
forever
please. And if the meaningless handwaving that I 100% expect as a
response
begins again, then that's fine. I'll take that as a no and you can
dump it.
For what it's worth; put me down as supporting the merger of swap
prefetch. I've found it useful in the past, Con has maintained it
nicely and cleaned up everything that people have pointed out - it's
mature, does no harm - let's just get it merged. It's too late for
2.6.23-rc1 now, but let's try and get this in by -rc2 - it's long
overdue...
Not talking about swap prefetch itself, but everytime I have asked
anyone to instrument or produce some workload where swap prefetch
helps, they never do.
Fair enough if swap prefetch helps them, but I also want to look at
why that is the case and try to improve page reclaim in some of
these situations (for example standard overnight cron jobs shouldn't
need swap prefetch on a 1 or 2GB system, I would hope).
Anyway, back to swap prefetch, I don't know why I've been singled out
as the bad guy here. I'm one of the only people who has had a look at
the damn thing and tried to point out areas where it could be improved
to the point of being included, and outlining things that are needed
for it to be merged (ie. numbers). If anyone thinks that makes me the
bad guy then they have an utterly inverted understanding of what peer
review is for.
Finally, everyone who has ever hacked on these heuristicy parts of the
VM has heaps of patches that help some workload or some silly test
case or (real or percieved) shortfall but have not been merged. It
really isn't anything personal.
If something really works, then it should be possible to get real
numbers in real situations where it helps (OK, swap prefetching won't
be as easy as a straight line performance improvement, but still much
easier than trying to measure something like scheduler interactivity).
Numbers are the best way to add weight to the pro-merge argument, so
for all the people who a whining about merging this and don't want
to actually work on the code -- post some numbers for where it helps
you!!
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
