[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150821092907.GH23723@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:29:07 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] mm, page_alloc: Delete the zonelist_cache
On Thu 20-08-15 14:42:40, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 03:18:43PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 12-08-15 11:45:26, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > [...]
> > > 4-node machine stutter
> > > 4-node machine stutter
> > > 4.2.0-rc1 4.2.0-rc1
> > > vanilla nozlc-v1r20
> > > Min mmap 53.9902 ( 0.00%) 49.3629 ( 8.57%)
> > > 1st-qrtle mmap 54.6776 ( 0.00%) 54.1201 ( 1.02%)
> > > 2nd-qrtle mmap 54.9242 ( 0.00%) 54.5961 ( 0.60%)
> > > 3rd-qrtle mmap 55.1817 ( 0.00%) 54.9338 ( 0.45%)
> > > Max-90% mmap 55.3952 ( 0.00%) 55.3929 ( 0.00%)
> > > Max-93% mmap 55.4766 ( 0.00%) 57.5712 ( -3.78%)
> > > Max-95% mmap 55.5522 ( 0.00%) 57.8376 ( -4.11%)
> > > Max-99% mmap 55.7938 ( 0.00%) 63.6180 (-14.02%)
> > > Max mmap 6344.0292 ( 0.00%) 67.2477 ( 98.94%)
> > > Mean mmap 57.3732 ( 0.00%) 54.5680 ( 4.89%)
> >
> > Do you have data for other leads? Because the reclaim counters look
> > quite discouraging to be honest.
> >
>
> None of the other workloads showed changes that were worth reporting.
OK, that is a good sign. I would agree that an extreme and artificial
load shouldn't be considered as a blocker.
> > > 4.1.0 4.1.0
> > > vanilla nozlc-v1r4
> > > Swap Ins 838 502
> > > Swap Outs 1149395 2622895
> >
> > Twice as much swapouts is a lot.
> >
> > > DMA32 allocs 17839113 15863747
> > > Normal allocs 129045707 137847920
> > > Direct pages scanned 4070089 29046893
> >
> > 7x more scanns by direct reclaim also sounds bad.
> >
>
> With this benchmark, the results for stutter will be highly variable as
> it's hammering the system. The intent of the test was to measure stalls at
> a time when desktop interactivity went to hell during IO and could stall
> for several minutes. Due to it nature, there is intense reclaim *and*
> compaction activity going on and there is no point drawing conclusions
> from the reclaim stats that are inherently good or bad.
>
> There will be differences in direct reclaim figures because instead of
> looping in the page allocator waiting for zlc to clear, it'll enter direct
> reclaim.
OK, I haven't considered this. kswapd might be stuck for quite some time
but all of them being stuck shouldn't be that likely. But still, this is
not a desirable behavior.
> In effect, the zlc causes processes to busy loop while kswapd
> does the work. If it turns out that this is the correct behaviour then
> we should do that explicitly, not rely on the broken zlc behaviour for
> the same reason we no longer rely on sprinkling congestion_wait() all
> over the place.
Fair point. I do agree that this should be done outside of
get_page_from_freelist. I am still surprised by the considerable
increase of swapouts but that should be handled separately if we see
that in the real world loads.
That being said
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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