[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx1pywykWa0ThcHgE7wzdVuyOBSx27iyx_FtZpYSJbKGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:02:23 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: numa: Slow PTE scan rate if migration failures occur
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>
> Testing now. It's a bit faster - three runs gave 7m35s, 7m20s and
> 7m36s. IOWs's a bit better, but not significantly. page migrations
> are pretty much unchanged, too:
>
> 558,632 migrate:mm_migrate_pages ( +- 6.38% )
Ok. That was kind of the expected thing.
I don't really know the NUMA fault rate limiting code, but one thing
that strikes me is that if it tries to balance the NUMA faults against
the *regular* faults, then maybe just the fact that we end up taking
more COW faults after a NUMA fault then means that the NUMA rate
limiting code now gets over-eager (because it sees all those extra
non-numa faults).
Mel, does that sound at all possible? I really have never looked at
the magic automatic rate handling..
Linus
--
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