linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
	Rob Mueller <robm@fastmail.fm>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH] mm: increase RECLAIM_DISTANCE to 30
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:34:27 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101008090427.GB5327@balbir.in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101008104852.803E.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

* KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> [2010-10-08 10:48:26]:

> Recently, Robert Mueller reported zone_reclaim_mode doesn't work
> properly on his new NUMA server (Dual Xeon E5520 + Intel S5520UR MB).
> He is using Cyrus IMAPd and it's built on a very traditional
> single-process model.
> 
>   * a master process which reads config files and manages the other
>     process
>   * multiple imapd processes, one per connection
>   * multiple pop3d processes, one per connection
>   * multiple lmtpd processes, one per connection
>   * periodical "cleanup" processes.
> 
> Then, there are thousands of independent processes. The problem is,
> recent Intel motherboard turn on zone_reclaim_mode by default and
> traditional prefork model software don't work fine on it.
> Unfortunatelly, Such model is still typical one even though 21th
> century. We can't ignore them.
> 
> This patch raise zone_reclaim_mode threshold to 30. 30 don't have
> specific meaning. but 20 mean one-hop QPI/Hypertransport and such
> relatively cheap 2-4 socket machine are often used for tradiotional
> server as above. The intention is, their machine don't use
> zone_reclaim_mode.
> 
> Note: ia64 and Power have arch specific RECLAIM_DISTANCE definition.
> then this patch doesn't change such high-end NUMA machine behavior.
> 
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> Cc: Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm>
> Cc: Robert Mueller <robm@fastmail.fm>
> Acked-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
> Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/topology.h |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/topology.h b/include/linux/topology.h
> index 64e084f..bfbec49 100644
> --- a/include/linux/topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/topology.h
> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
>   * (in whatever arch specific measurement units returned by node_distance())
>   * then switch on zone reclaim on boot.
>   */
> -#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20
> +#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE 30
>  #endif
>  #ifndef PENALTY_FOR_NODE_WITH_CPUS
>  #define PENALTY_FOR_NODE_WITH_CPUS	(1)

I am not sure if this makes sense, since RECLAIM_DISTANCE is supposed
to be a hardware parameter. Could you please help clarify what the
access latency of a node with RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20 to that of a node
with RECLAIM_DISTANCE 30 is? Has the hardware definition of reclaim
distance changed?

I suspect the side effect is the zone_reclaim_mode is not set to 1 on
bootup for the 2-4 socket machines you mention, which results in
better VM behaviour?

-- 
	Three Cheers,
	Balbir

--
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:[~2010-10-08  9:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-10-08  1:48 KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-08  9:04 ` Balbir Singh [this message]
2010-10-08 15:45   ` Christoph Lameter
2010-10-08 16:59     ` Balbir Singh
2010-10-08 17:56       ` Christoph Lameter
2010-10-12  2:11         ` David Rientjes
2010-10-12  2:17           ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-12  3:12             ` David Rientjes
2010-10-12  4:07               ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-12  6:41                 ` Balbir Singh
2010-10-12  1:55   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-08  1:48 KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-25  3:24 KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-25  4:35 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki

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=20101008090427.GB5327@balbir.in.ibm.com \
    --to=balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=brong@fastmail.fm \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=robm@fastmail.fm \
    /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