[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1404080914280.8782@nuc>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:17:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@...il.com>,
Josh Berkus <josh@...iodbs.com>,
Andres Freund <andres@...quadrant.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, sivanich@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Disable zone_reclaim_mode by default
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 04/08/2014 12:34 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > When it was introduced, zone_reclaim_mode made sense as NUMA distances
> > punished and workloads were generally partitioned to fit into a NUMA
> > node. NUMA machines are now common but few of the workloads are NUMA-aware
> > and it's routine to see major performance due to zone_reclaim_mode being
> > disabled but relatively few can identify the problem.
> ^ I think you meant "enabled" here?
>
> Just in case the cover letter goes to the changelog...
Correct.
Another solution here would be to increase the threshhold so that
4 socket machines do not enable zone reclaim by default. The larger the
NUMA system is the more memory is off node from the perspective of a
processor and the larger the hit from remote memory.
On the other hand: The more expensive we make reclaim the less it
makes sense to allow zone reclaim to occur.
--
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