[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701121341320.3087@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:45:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
"Shai Fultheim (Shai@...lex86.org)" <shai@...lex86.org>,
pravin b shelar <pravin.shelar@...softinc.com>,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl
Subject: Re: High lock spin time for zone->lru_lock under extreme conditions
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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists