[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101029112541.8ab906bb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:25:41 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: page allocator: Adjust the per-cpu counter
threshold when memory is low
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:58:25 -0500 (CDT)
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > > To ensure that kswapd wakes up, a safe version of zone_watermark_ok()
> > > is introduced that takes a more accurate reading of NR_FREE_PAGES when
> > > called from wakeup_kswapd, when deciding whether it is really safe to go
> > > back to sleep in sleeping_prematurely() and when deciding if a zone is
> > > really balanced or not in balance_pgdat(). We are still using an expensive
> > > function but limiting how often it is called.
> >
> > Here I go again. I have a feeling that I already said this, but I
> > can't find versions 2 or 3 in the archives..
> >
> > Did you evaluate using plain on percpu_counters for this? They won't
> > solve the performance problem as they're basically the same thing as
> > these open-coded counters. But they'd reduce the amount of noise and
> > custom-coded boilerplate in mm/.
>
> The zone counters are done using the ZVCs in vmstat.c to save space
well, they actually waste space because of that threshold thing.
> and to
> be in the same cacheline as other hot data necessary for allocation and
> free.
Yes, that'll save some misses.
> >
> > > + threshold = max(1, (int)(watermark_distance / num_online_cpus()));
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Maximum threshold is 125
> >
> > Reasoning?
>
> Differentials are stored in 8 bit signed ints.
>
> > > + put_online_cpus();
> > > +}
> >
> > Given that ->stat_threshold is the same for each CPU, why store it for
> > each CPU at all? Why not put it in the zone and eliminate the inner
> > loop?
>
> Doing that caused cache misses in the past and reduced the performance of
> the ZVCs. This way the threshold is in the same cacheline as the
> differentials.
This sounds wrong. As long as that threshold isn't stored in a
cacheline which other CPUs are modifying, all CPUs should be able to
happily cache it. Maybe it needed a bit of padding inside the zone
struct.
--
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