Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

[david@lang.hm]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> david@lang.hm wrote:
> >  On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > >  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.
>
> Not at all. But there is also seems to be some people also experiencing
> problems with basic page reclaim on some of the workloads where these
> things help. I am not dismissing anybody's claims about anything; I want
> to try to solve some of these problems.
>
> Interestingly, some of the people ranting the most about how the VM sucks
> are the ones helping least in solving these basic problems.
>
>
> >  so now the measurements of the constructed test case aren't acceptable.
> >
> >  what sort of test case would be acceptable?
>
> Well I never said real world tests aren't acceptable, they are. There is
> a difference between an "it feels better for me", and some actual real
> measurement and analysis of said workload.
>
> And constructed test cases of course are useful as well, I didn't say
> they weren't. I don't know what you mean by "acceptable", but you should
> read my last paragraph again.

this problem has been around for many years, with many different people 
working on solutions. it's hardly a case of getting a proposal and trying 
to get it in without anyone looking at other options.

it seems that there are some people (not nessasarily including you) who 
will oppose this feature until a test is created that shows that it's 
better. the question is what sort of test will be accepted as valid? I'm 
not useing this patch, but it sounds as if the people who are useing it 
are interested in doing whatever testing is required, but so far the 
situation seems to be a series of "here's a test", "that test isn't valid, 
try again" loops. which don't seem to be doing anyone any good and are 
frustrating lots of people, so like several people over the last few days 
O'm asking the question, "what sort of test would be acceptable as proof 
that this patch does some good?"

David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/