Re: QUEUE_FLAG_CLUSTER: not working in 2.6.24 ?

[Mark Lord]

Mel Gorman wrote:
> On (13/12/07 16:37), Andrew Morton didst pronounce:
> > On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:30:00 -0500
> > Mark Lord <liml@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Here's the commit that causes the regression:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > @@ -760,7 +760,8 @@ static int rmqueue_bulk(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order,
> > >  		struct page *page = __rmqueue(zone, order, migratetype);
> > >  		if (unlikely(page == NULL))
> > >  			break;
> > > -		list_add_tail(&page->lru, list);
> > > +		list_add(&page->lru, list);
> > well that looks fishy.
>
> The reasoning behind the change was the first page encountered on the list
> by the caller would have a matching migratetype. I failed to take into
> account the physical ordering of pages returned. I'm setting up to run some
> performance benchmarks of the candidate fix merged into the -mm tree to see
> if the search shows up or not. I'm testing against 2.6.25-rc5 but it'll
> take a few hours to complete.
..

Thanks, Mel.  This is all with CONFIG_SLAB=y, by the way.

Note that it did appear to behave better with CONFIG_SLUB=y when I accidently
used that .config on my 4GB machine here.  Physical segments of 4-10 pages
happended much more common than with CONFIG_SLAB=y on my 3GB machine
Slightly "apples and oranges" there, I know, but at least both were x86-32.  :)

So I would expect CONFIG_SLAB to be well off with this patch under most (all?)
conditions, but dunno about CONFIG_SLUB.

Cheers




--
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/