Re: Re: Performance degradation seen after using one list for hot/cold pages.

[NARAYANAN GOPALAKRISHNAN <narayanan.g@samsung.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252, Size: 984 bytes --]


> I'll add the rather important text:
> 
> Fix a post-2.6.24 performance regression caused by
> 3dfa5721f12c3d5a441448086bee156887daa961 ("page-allocator: preserve PFN
> ordering when __GFP_COLD is set").
>
> This was a pretty major screwup.
>
> This is why changing core MM is so worrisome - there's so much secret and
> subtle history to it, and performance dependencies are unobvious and quite
> indirect and the lag time to discover regressions is long.
> 
> Narayanan, are you able to quantify the regression more clearly?  All I
> have is "2 MBps lower" which isn't very useful.  What is this as a
> percentage, and with what sort of disk controller?  Thanks.

It is around 15%. There is no disk controller as our setup is based on Samsung OneNAND
used as a memory mapped device on a OMAP2430 based board.

Narayanan
ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥