linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove set_migrateflags()
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:53:00 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080114225300.GB27460@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801141127330.7891@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>

On (14/01/08 11:29), Christoph Lameter didst pronounce:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Mel Gorman wrote:
> 
> > Grouping the radix nodes into the same TLB entries as the inode and dcaches
> > does appear to help performance a small amount on kernbench at least. Applying
> > this patch showed a performance difference on elapsed time between -4.45%
> > and 0.23% and between -0.36% and 0.28% on total CPU time which appears to
> > support that position.
> 
> Ahh... Okay.
> 
> > > And thus setting __GFP_RECLAIMABLE
> > > is a bit strange. We could set SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT on radix tree slab
> > > creation if we want those to be placed in the reclaimable section.
> > > Then we are sure that the radix tree slabs are consistently placed in the
> > > reclaimable section and then the radix tree slabs will also be accounted as
> > > such.
> > > 
> > 
> > What is there right now places the pages appropriately but should they really
> > be accounted for as such too? I know that marking them like that will
> > cause SLUB to treat them differently and I don't fully understand the
> > implications of that.
> 
> Marking them makes the slab allocators set GFP_RECLAIMABLE on all page 
> allocator allocations for the radix tree and it will also cause the 
> statistics to be update correspondingly. No other differences.
> 

Ok, great.

> > NAK for now. I'm still of the opinion that radix nodes should be marked
> > reclaimable because they are often cleaned up at the same time as slabs that
> > are really reclaimable.
> 
> Do another version of this patch setting SLAB_RECLAIM_ACCOUNT for the 
> radix tree?
> 

If you send me a version, I'll review and put it through the same tests.
I can roll the patch as well if you'd prefer.

Thanks.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2008-01-14 22:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-11  2:42 Christoph Lameter
2008-01-14 11:55 ` Mel Gorman
2008-01-14 19:29   ` Christoph Lameter
2008-01-14 22:53     ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2008-02-12  0:16 Christoph Lameter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080114225300.GB27460@csn.ul.ie \
    --to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=clameter@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox