From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
"Shai Fultheim (Shai@scalex86.org)" <shai@scalex86.org>,
pravin b shelar <pravin.shelar@calsoftinc.com>,
a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl
Subject: Re: High lock spin time for zone->lru_lock under extreme conditions
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:45:43 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701121341320.3087@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070112214021.GA4300@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> > Does the system scale the right way if you stay within the bounds of node
> > memory? I.e. allocate 1.5GB from each process?
>
> Yes. We see problems only when we oversubscribe memory.
Ok in that case we can have more than 2 processors trying to acquire the
same zone lock. If they have all exhausted their node local memory and are
all going off node then all processor may be hitting the last node that
has some memory left which will cause a very high degree of contention.
Moreover mostatomic operations are to remote memory which is also
increasing the problem by making the atomic ops take longer. Typically
mature NUMA system have implemented hardware provisions that can deal with
such high degrees of contention. If this is simply a SMP system that was
turned into a NUMA box then this is a new hardware scenario for the
engineers.
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-12 21:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-12 16:01 Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2007-01-12 17:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-01-12 19:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-01-12 21:25 ` Andrew Morton
2007-01-12 21:40 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2007-01-12 21:45 ` Christoph Lameter [this message]
2007-01-13 1:00 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2007-01-13 1:11 ` Andrew Morton
2007-01-13 7:42 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2007-01-13 4:39 ` Nick Piggin
2007-01-13 7:36 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2007-01-13 7:53 ` Nick Piggin
2007-01-13 8:00 ` Andrew Morton
2007-01-13 19:53 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2007-01-13 21:20 ` Andrew Morton
2007-01-16 2:56 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
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=Pine.LNX.4.64.0701121341320.3087@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com \
--to=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=kiran@scalex86.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=pravin.shelar@calsoftinc.com \
--cc=shai@scalex86.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