[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47C4EF2D.90508@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:33:41 +0530
From: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] page reclaim throttle take2
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi
>
>>> I don't think so.
>>> all modern many cpu machine stand on NUMA.
>>> it mean following,
>>> - if cpu increases, then zone increases, too.
>>>
>>> if default value increase by #cpus, lock contension dramatically increase
>>> on large numa.
>>>
>>> Have I overlooked anything?
>>>
>> How about adding something like..
>> ==
>> CONFIG_SIMULTANEOUS_PAGE_RECLAIMERS
>> int
>> default 3
>> depends on DEBUG
>> help
>> This value determines the number of threads which can do page reclaim
>> in a zone simultaneously. If this is too big, performance under heavy memory
>> pressure will decrease.
>> If unsure, use default.
>> ==
>>
>> Then, you can get performance reports from people interested in this
>> feature in test cycle.
>
> hm, intersting.
> but sysctl parameter is more better, i think.
>
> OK, I'll add it at next post.
I think sysctl should be interesting. The config option provides good
documentation, but it is static in nature (requires reboot to change). I wish we
could have the best of both worlds.
--
Warm Regards,
Balbir Singh
Linux Technology Center
IBM, ISTL
--
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