[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <acbff0c6-ddd8-3843-597c-99cfadcd4e61@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 10:44:52 +0800
From: kemi <kemi.wang@...el.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
Proc sysctl <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm, sysctl: make VM stats configurable
On 2017年09月15日 22:28, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 15-09-17 07:16:23, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 09/15/2017 04:49 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> Why do we need an auto-mode? Is it safe to enforce by default.
>>
>> Do we *need* it? Not really.
>>
>> But, it does offer the best of both worlds: The vast majority of users
>> see virtually no impact from the counters. The minority that do need
>> them pay the cost *and* don't have to change their tooling at all.
>
> Just to make it clear, I am not really opposing. It just adds some code
> which we can safe... It is also rather chatty for something that can be
> true/false.
>
It has benefit, as Dave mentioned above.
Actually, it adds some coding complexity to provide a tuning interface with
on/off/auto mode. Using human-readable string instead of magic number makes
it easier to use, people probably don't need to review the ABI doc again
before using it. So, I don't think that should be a problem
>>> Is it> possible that userspace can get confused to see 0 NUMA stats in
>> the
>>> first read while other allocation stats are non-zero?
>>
>> I doubt it. Those counters are pretty worthless by themselves. I have
>> tooling that goes and reads them, but it aways displays deltas. Read
>> stats, sleep one second, read again, print the difference.
>
> This is how I use them as well.
>
>> The only scenario I can see mattering is someone who is seeing a
>> performance issue due to NUMA allocation misses (or whatever) and wants
>> to go look *back* in the past.
>
> yes
>
If it really matters, setting vmstat_mode=strict as a default option is a simple
way to fix it. What's your idea? thanks
>> A single-time printk could also go a long way to keeping folks from
>> getting confused.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists