linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@intel.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] zone_reclaim is always 0 by default
Date: Tue,  9 Jun 2009 22:48:34 +0900 (JST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090609211721.DD9A.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090608115048.GA15070@csn.ul.ie>

Hi

sorry for late responce. my e-mail reading speed is very slow ;-)

First, Could you please read past thread?
I think many topic of this mail are already discussed.


> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 07:23:15PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > 
> > Current linux policy is, zone_reclaim_mode is enabled by default if the machine
> > has large remote node distance. it's because we could assume that large distance
> > mean large server until recently.
> > 
> 
> We don't make assumptions about the server being large, small or otherwise. The
> affinity tables reporting a distance of 20 or more is saying "remote memory
> has twice the latency of local memory". This is true irrespective of workload
> and implies that going off-node has a real penalty regardless of workload.

No.
Now, we talk about off-node allocation vs unnecessary file cache dropping.
IOW, off-node allocation vs disk access.

Then, the worth doesn't only depend on off-node distance, but also depend on
workload IO tendency and IO speed.

Fujitsu has 64 core ia64 HPC box, zone-reclaim sometimes made performance
degression although its box. 

So, I don't think this problem is small vs large machine issue.
nor i7 issue.
high-speed P2P CPU integrated memory controller expose old issue.


> > In general, workload depended configration shouldn't put into default settings.
> > 
> > However, current code is long standing about two year. Highest POWER and IA64 HPC machine
> > (only) use this setting.
> > 
> > Thus, x86 and almost rest architecture change default setting, but Only power and ia64
> > remain current configuration for backward-compatibility.
> > 
> 
> What about if it's x86-64-based NUMA but it's not i7 based. There, the
> NUMA distances might really mean something and that zone_reclaim behaviour
> is desirable.

hmmm..
I don't hope ignore AMD, I think it's common characterastic of P2P and
integrated memory controller machine.

Also, I don't hope detect CPU family or similar, because we need update
such code evey when Intel makes new cpu.

Can we detect P2P interconnect machine? I'm not sure.


> I think if we're going down the road of setting the default, it shouldn't be
> per-architecture defaults as such. Other choices for addressing this might be;
> 
> 1. Make RECLAIM_DISTANCE a variable on x86. Set it to 20 by default, and 5
>    (or some other sensible figure) on i7
> 
> 2. There should be a per-arch modifier callback for the affinity
>    distances. If the x86 code detects the CPU is an i7, it can reduce the
>    reported latencies to be more in line with expected reality.
> 
> 3. Do not use zone_reclaim() for file-backed data if more than 20% of memory
>    overall is free. The difficulty is figuring out if the allocation is for
>    file pages.
> 
> 4. Change zone_reclaim_mode default to mean "do your best to figure it
>    out". Patch 1 would default large distances to 1 to see what happens.
>    Then apply a heuristic when in figure-it-out mode and using reclaim_mode == 1
> 
> 	If we have locally reclaimed 2% of the nodes memory in file pages
> 	within the last 5 seconds when >= 20% of total physical memory was
> 	free, then set the reclaim_mode to 0 on the assumption the node is
> 	mostly caching pages and shouldn't be reclaimed to avoid excessive IO
> 
> Option 1 would appear to be the most straight-forward but option 2
> should be doable. Option 3 and 4 could turn into a rats nest and I would
> consider those approaches a bit more drastic.

hmhm. 
I think the key-point of option 1 and 2 are proper hardware detecting way.

option 3 and 4 are more prefere idea to me. I like workload adapted heuristic.
but you already pointed out its hard, because page-allocator don't know
allocation purpose ;)


> > @@ -10,6 +10,12 @@ struct device_node;
> >  
> >  #include <asm/mmzone.h>
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Distance above which we begin to use zone reclaim
> > + */
> > +#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20
> > +
> > +
> 
> Where is the ia-64-specific modifier to RECAIM_DISTANCE?


arch/ia64/include/asm/topology.h has

	/*
	 * Distance above which we begin to use zone reclaim
	 */
	#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE 15


I don't think distance==15 is machine independent proper definition.
but there is long lived definition ;)




--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-06-09 13:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-06-04 10:23 KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-04 10:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-04 12:24 ` Robin Holt
2009-06-08 11:50 ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-09  9:55   ` Robin Holt
2009-06-09 10:37     ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 12:02       ` Robin Holt
2009-06-09 19:47         ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-09 13:48   ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2009-06-09 14:38     ` Mel Gorman

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=20090609211721.DD9A.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=holt@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=yanmin.zhang@intel.com \
    /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