[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070302135243.ada51084.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:52:43 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>, npiggin@...e.de, mingo@...e.hu,
jschopp@...tin.ibm.com, arjan@...radead.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mbligh@...igh.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related
patches
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:19:19 -0500
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> Bill Irwin wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:23:28PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >> With 32 CPUs diving into the page reclaim simultaneously,
> >> each trying to scan a fraction of memory, this is disastrous
> >> for performance. A 256GB system should be even worse.
> >
> > Thundering herds of a sort pounding the LRU locks from direct reclaim
> > have set off the NMI oopser for users here.
>
> Ditto here.
Opterons?
> The main reason they end up pounding the LRU locks is the
> swappiness heuristic. They scan too much before deciding
> that it would be a good idea to actually swap something
> out, and with 32 CPUs doing such scanning simultaneously...
What kernel version?
-
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