[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171214092338.GF16951@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:23:38 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: kemi <kemi.wang@...el.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
YASUAKI ISHIMATSU <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Dave <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: NUMA stats code cleanup and enhancement
On Thu 14-12-17 16:55:54, kemi wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年12月14日 15:29, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 14-12-17 09:40:32, kemi wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> or sometimes
> >> NUMA stats can't be disabled in their environments.
> >
> > why?
> >
> >> That's the reason
> >> why we spent time to do that optimization other than simply adding a runtime
> >> configuration interface.
> >>
> >> Furthermore, the code we optimized for is the core area of kernel that can
> >> benefit most of kernel actions, more or less I think.
> >>
> >> All right, let's think about it in another way, does a u64 percpu array per-node
> >> for NUMA stats really make code too much complicated and hard to maintain?
> >> I'm afraid not IMHO.
> >
> > I disagree. The whole numa stat things has turned out to be nasty to
> > maintain. For a very limited gain. Now you are just shifting that
> > elsewhere. Look, there are other counters taken in the allocator, we do
> > not want to treat them specially. We have a nice per-cpu infrastructure
> > here so I really fail to see why we should code-around it. If that can
> > be improved then by all means let's do it.
> >
>
> Yes, I agree with you that we may improve current per-cpu infrastructure.
> May we have a chance to increase the size of vm_node_stat_diff from s8 to s16 for
> this "per-cpu infrastructure" (s32 in per-cpu counter infrastructure)? The
> limitation of type s8 seems not enough with more and more cpu cores, especially
> for those monotone increasing type of counters like NUMA counters.
>
> before after(moving numa to per_cpu_nodestat
> and change s8 to s16)
> sizeof(struct per_cpu_nodestat) 28 68
>
> If ok, we can also keep that improvement in a nice way.
I wouldn't be opposed. Maybe we should make it nr_cpus sized.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists