On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Hugh Dickins wrote:

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Andrew Morton wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

But it was a shock to find swapoff of a 500MB file 20 times slower
on my laptop, taking 10 minutes; and at that rate it significantly
slows down my testing.

So it used to take half a minute?  That was already awful.
Why?  Was it IO-bound?  It doesn't sound like it.

No, not IO-bound at all.

I oversimplified: about 10 seconds of that was waiting for IO,
the rest (of 10 minutes or of half a minute) was cpu.  It's the cpu
part of it which the change of radix tree has affected, for the worse.

quoted

How much did that 10 minutes improve?

To 1 minute: still twice as slow as before.  I believe that's because of
the smaller nodes and greater height of the generic radix tree.  I ought
to experiment with a bigger RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT to verify that belief
(though I don't think tmpfs swapoff would justify raising it): will do.

Yes, raising RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT from 6 to 10 (so on 32-bit the rnode
is just over 4kB, comparable with the old shmem's use of pages for this)
brings the time down considerably: still slower than before, but 12%
slower instead of twice as slow (or 20% slower instead of 3 times as
slow when comparing sys times).

Not that making a radix_tree_node need order:1 page would be sensible.

Hugh

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>