linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: page allocator: Adjust the per-cpu counter threshold when memory is low

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:53:20 +0800
From:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.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 Sat, 2010-10-30 at 03:40 +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:12:11 +0100
> Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 03:04:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:13:35 +0100
> > 
> > > 
> > > I have a feeling this problem will bite us again perhaps due to those
> > > other callsites, but we haven't found the workload yet.
> > > 
> > > I don't undestand why restore/reduce_pgdat_percpu_threshold() were
> > > called around that particular sleep in kswapd and nowhere else.
> > > 
> > > > vanilla                      11.6615%
> > > > disable-threshold            0.2584%
> > > 
> > > Wow.  That's 12% of all CPUs?  How many CPUs and what workload?
> > > 
> > 
> > 112 threads CPUs 14 sockets. Workload initialisation creates NR_CPU sparse
> > files that are 10*TOTAL_MEMORY/NR_CPU in size. Workload itself is NR_CPU
> > processes just reading their own file.
> > 
> > The critical thing is the number of sockets. For single-socket-8-thread
> > for example, vanilla was just 0.66% of time (although the patches did
> > bring it down to 0.11%).
> 
> I'm surprised.  I thought the inefficiency here was caused by CPUs
> tromping through percpu data, adding things up.  But the above info
> would indicate that the problem was caused by lots of cross-socket
> traffic?  If so, where did that come from?
>>From my understanding, the problem is zone_nr_free_pages() will try to
read each cpu's ->vm_stat_diff, while other CPUs are changing their
vm_stat_diff. This will cause a lot of cache bounce.

--
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/