From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, pj@sgi.com, ak@suse.de,
kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Use one zonelist per node instead of multiple zonelists v2
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:36:19 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0708081025330.12652@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070808161504.32320.79576.sendpatchset@skynet.skynet.ie>
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Mel Gorman wrote:
> These are the range of performance losses/gains I found when running against
> 2.6.23-rc1-mm2. The set and these machines are a mix of i386, x86_64 and
> ppc64 both NUMA and non-NUMA.
>
> Total CPU time on Kernbench: -0.20% to 3.70%
> Elapsed time on Kernbench: -0.32% to 3.62%
> page_test from aim9: -2.17% to 12.42%
> brk_test from aim9: -6.03% to 11.49%
> fork_test from aim9: -2.30% to 5.42%
> exec_test from aim9: -0.68% to 3.39%
> Size reduction of pg_dat_t: 0 to 7808 bytes (depends on alignment)
Looks good.
> o Remove bind_zonelist() (Patch in progress, very messy right now)
Will this also allow us to avoid always hitting the first node of an
MPOL_BIND first?
> o Eliminate policy_zone (Trickier)
I doubt that this is possible given
1. We need lower zones (DMA) in various context
2. Those DMA zones are only available on particular nodes.
Policy_zone could be made to only control allows of the highest (and with
ZONE_MOVABLE) second highest zone on a node?
Think about the 8GB x86_64 configuration I mentioned earlier
node 0 up to 2 GB ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32
node 1 up to 4 GB ZONE_DMA32
node 2 up to 6 GB ZONE_NORMAL
node 3 up to 8 GB ZONE_NORMAL
If one wants the node restrictions to work on all nodes then we need to
apply policy depending on the highest zone of the node.
Current MPOL_BIND would only apply policy to allocations on node 2 and 3.
With ZONE_MOVABLE splitting the highest zone (We will likely need that):
node 0 up to 2 GB ZONE_DMA and ZONE_DMA32, ZONE_MOVABLE
node 1 up to 4 GB ZONE_DMA32, ZONE_MOVABLE
node 2 up to 6 GB ZONE_NORMAL, ZONE_MOVABLE
node 3 up to 8 GB ZONE_NORMAL, ZONE_MOVABLE
So then the two highest zones on each node would need to be subject to
policy control.
Another thing is that we may want to think about is maybe to evolve
ZONE_MOVABLE to be more like the antifrag sections. That way we may be
able to avoid the multiple types of pages on the pcp lists. That would
work if we would only work with two page types: Movable and unmovable
(fold reclaimable into movable after slab defrag)
Then would make blocks of memory movable between ZONE_MOVABLE and others.
At that point we are almost at the functionality that antifrag offers and
we may have simplified things a bit.
--
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:[~2007-08-08 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-08 16:15 Mel Gorman
2007-08-08 16:15 ` [PATCH 1/3] Use zonelists instead of zones when direct reclaiming pages Mel Gorman
2007-08-08 17:38 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-08-08 21:06 ` Mel Gorman
2007-08-08 16:15 ` [PATCH 2/3] Use one zonelist that is filtered instead of multiple zonelists Mel Gorman
2007-08-08 17:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-08-08 21:10 ` Mel Gorman
2007-08-08 23:28 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-08-08 16:16 ` [PATCH 3/3] Apply MPOL_BIND policy to two highest zones when highest is ZONE_MOVABLE Mel Gorman
2007-08-08 17:36 ` Christoph Lameter [this message]
2007-08-08 18:30 ` [PATCH 0/3] Use one zonelist per node instead of multiple zonelists v2 Lee Schermerhorn
2007-08-08 21:44 ` Mel Gorman
2007-08-08 22:40 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2007-08-08 23:37 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-08-09 14:47 ` Mel Gorman
2007-08-08 23:35 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-08-08 21:04 ` Mel Gorman
2007-08-08 23:26 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-08-09 20:19 ` Andrew Morton
2007-08-09 20:33 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-08-09 20:51 ` Mel Gorman
2007-08-09 21:20 ` Andi Kleen
2007-08-09 21:40 ` 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=Pine.LNX.4.64.0708081025330.12652@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com \
--to=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=pj@sgi.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