[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181112165412.vizeiv6oimsuxkbk@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 08:54:12 -0800
From: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
To: "Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)" <elliott@....com>
Cc: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"aarcange@...hat.com" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"aaron.lu@...el.com" <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"bsd@...hat.com" <bsd@...hat.com>,
"darrick.wong@...cle.com" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"jgg@...lanox.com" <jgg@...lanox.com>,
"jwadams@...gle.com" <jwadams@...gle.com>,
"jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
"mhocko@...nel.org" <mhocko@...nel.org>,
"mike.kravetz@...cle.com" <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
"Pavel.Tatashin@...rosoft.com" <Pavel.Tatashin@...rosoft.com>,
"prasad.singamsetty@...cle.com" <prasad.singamsetty@...cle.com>,
"rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"steven.sistare@...cle.com" <steven.sistare@...cle.com>,
"tim.c.chen@...el.com" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "vbabka@...e.cz" <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 11/13] mm: parallelize deferred struct page
initialization within each node
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 03:48:14AM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org <linux-kernel-
> > owner@...r.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Jordan
> > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 10:56 AM
> > Subject: [RFC PATCH v4 11/13] mm: parallelize deferred struct page
> > initialization within each node
> >
> > ... The kernel doesn't
> > know the memory bandwidth of a given system to get the most efficient
> > number of threads, so there's some guesswork involved.
>
> The ACPI HMAT (Heterogeneous Memory Attribute Table) is designed to report
> that kind of information, and could facilitate automatic tuning.
>
> There was discussion last year about kernel support for it:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20171214021019.13579-1-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com/
Thanks for bringing this up. I'm traveling but will take a closer look when I
get back.
> > In testing, a reasonable value turned out to be about a quarter of the
> > CPUs on the node.
> ...
> > + /*
> > + * We'd like to know the memory bandwidth of the chip to
> > calculate the
> > + * most efficient number of threads to start, but we can't.
> > + * In testing, a good value for a variety of systems was a
> > quarter of the CPUs on the node.
> > + */
> > + nr_node_cpus = DIV_ROUND_UP(cpumask_weight(cpumask), 4);
>
>
> You might want to base that calculation on and limit the threads to
> physical cores, not hyperthreaded cores.
Why? Hyperthreads can be beneficial when waiting on memory. That said, I
don't have data that shows that in this case.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists