[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101012104701.AD2B.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:55:51 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Rob Mueller <robm@...tmail.fm>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bron Gondwana <brong@...tmail.fm>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [resend][PATCH] mm: increase RECLAIM_DISTANCE to 30
Hi
> > -#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20
> > +#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE 30
> > #endif
> > #ifndef PENALTY_FOR_NODE_WITH_CPUS
> > #define PENALTY_FOR_NODE_WITH_CPUS (1)
>
> I am not sure if this makes sense, since RECLAIM_DISTANCE is supposed
> to be a hardware parameter. Could you please help clarify what the
> access latency of a node with RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20 to that of a node
> with RECLAIM_DISTANCE 30 is? Has the hardware definition of reclaim
> distance changed?
Recently, Intel/AMD implemented QPI/Hypertransport on their cpus. Then,
commodity server's average node distance dramatically changed and our threshold
became typical case unfit.
So, my intention is, commodity server continue to don't use zone_reclaim_mode.
because their workload haven't been changed.
30 itself don't have strong meaning.
> I suspect the side effect is the zone_reclaim_mode is not set to 1 on
> bootup for the 2-4 socket machines you mention, which results in
> better VM behaviour?
It depend on workload. If you are using file/web/emal server (i.e. most common case),
it's better. but HPC workload don't works so fine.
--
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