On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 11:37:34AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 20:40 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 11:43:34PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted

From: Peter Zijlstra <redacted>

Peter,

I tried your "scan-shared.c" proggy which loops over 140M of a file
using mmap (on a 128MB box). The number of loops was configured to "5".

The amount of major/minor pagefaults was exactly the same between
vanilla and clockpro, isnt the clockpro algorithm supposed to be
superior than LRU in such "sequential scan of MEMSIZE+1" cases?

yes it should, hmm, have to look at that then.

What should happen is that nr_cold_target should drop to the bare
minimum, which effectivly pins all hot pages and only rotates the few
cold pages.

I screwed up the tests. Here are the real numbers.

Test: scan 140MB file sequentially, 5 times.
Env: 128Mb machine

CLOCK-Pro:	0:49:98elapsed	18%CPU
		7358maj+95308min

vanilla:
		1:28.05elapsed	11%CPU
		12950maj+166374min

Kicking some large arses!

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>