Re: objrmap-core-1 (rmap removal for file mappings to avoid 4:4 in <=16G machines)

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > (OASB is not a full-disclosure benchmark so i have no way to check
> > this.) All you have proven is that workloads with a limited number of
> > per-inode vmas can perform well. Which completely ignores my point.
> 
> what is your point, that OASB is a worthless workload and the only
> thing that matters is TPC-C? [...]

not at all. I pointed out specific workloads that create tons of vmas,
which would perform very bad if swapping. OASB is not one of those
workloads. [I could also mention UML which currently creates a vma per
virtualized page, which, with a low-end UML setup, generates tens of
thousands of vmas as well.]

(if the linear search is fixed then i have no objections, but for the
current code to hit any mainline kernel we would first need to redefine
'enterprise quality'. My main worry is that we are now at a dozen emails
regarding this topic and you still dont seem to be aware of the severity
of this quality of implementation problem.)

sure, remap_file_pages() fixes such problems - while i'm happy if more
people use remap_file_pages(), apps are not (and should not be) forced
to use remap_file_pages() and i refuse to concede that the VM must
inevitably get wedged with just a couple of thousand vmas created on a
256 MB 500 MHz box ... I dont know how to put this point in a simpler
way. This stuff must not be added (to mainline) until it can take the
load.

	Ingo
-
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/