On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
Eric St-Laurent wrote:
On Wed, 2007-25-07 at 06:55 +0200, Rene Herman wrote:
> It certainly doesn't run for me ever. Always kind of a "that's not the
> point" comment but I just keep wondering whenever I see anyone complain
> about updatedb why the _hell_ they are running it in the first place. If
> anyone who never uses "locate" for anything simply disable updatedb, the
> problem will for a large part be solved.
>
> This not just meant as a cheap comment; while I can think of a few
> similar loads even on the desktop (scanning a browser cache, a media
> player indexing a large amount of media files, ...) I've never heard of
> problems _other_ than updatedb. So just junk that crap and be happy.
>From my POV there's two different problems discussed recently:
- updatedb type of workloads that add tons of inodes and dentries in the
slab caches which of course use the pagecache.
- streaming large files (read or copying) that fill the pagecache with
useless used-once data
swap prefetch fix the first case, drop-behind fix the second case.
OK, this is where I start to worry. Swap prefetch AFAIKS doesn't fix
the updatedb problem very well, because if updatedb has caused swapout
then it has filled memory, and swap prefetch doesn't run unless there
is free memory (not to mention that updatedb would have paged out other
files as well).
And drop behind doesn't fix your usual problem where you are downloading
from a server, because that is use-once write(2) data which is the
problem. And this readahead-based drop behind also doesn't help if data
you were reading happened to be a sequence of small files, or otherwise
not in good readahead order.
Not to say that neither fix some problems, but for such conceptually
big changes, it should take a little more effort than a constructed test
case and no consideration of the alternatives to get it merged.
well, there appears to be a fairly large group of people who have
subjective opinions that it helps them. but those were dismissed becouse
they aren't measurements.
so now the measurements of the constructed test case aren't acceptable.
what sort of test case would be acceptable?
David Lang
-
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]
