Re: [-stable 3.8.1 performance regression] madvise POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED

[Yannick Brosseau]

On 2013-07-03 04:47, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> Given it is just a hint, we should be allowed to perform page
>> > deactivation lazily. Is there any fundamental reason to wait for worker
>> > threads on each CPU to complete their lru drain before returning from
>> > fadvise() to user-space ?
>> > 
> Only to make sure they pages are actually dropped as requested. The reason
> the wait was introduced in the first place was that page cache was filling
> up even with the fadvise calls and causing disruption. In 3.11 disruption
> due to this sort of parallel IO should be reduced but making fadvise work
> properly is reasonable in itself. Was that patch I posted ever tested or
> did I manage to miss it?
I did test it. On our test case, we get a worst result with it.

Yannick
--
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/