[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190726092021.GA5273@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:50:21 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, jhladky@...hat.com,
lvenanci@...hat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] autonuma: Fix scan period updating
* Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> [2019-07-26 15:45:39]:
> Hi, Srikar,
>
> >
> > More Remote + Private page Accesses:
> > Most likely the Private accesses are going to be local accesses.
> >
> > In the unlikely event of the private accesses not being local, we should
> > scan faster so that the memory and task consolidates.
> >
> > More Remote + Shared page Accesses: This means the workload has not
> > consolidated and needs to scan faster. So we need to scan faster.
>
> This sounds reasonable. But
>
> lr_ratio < NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD
>
> doesn't indicate More Remote. If Local = Remote, it is also true. If
less lr_ratio means more remote.
> there are also more Shared, we should slow down the scanning. So, the
Why should we slowing down if there are more remote shared accesses?
> logic could be
>
> if (lr_ratio >= NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD)
> slow down scanning
> else if (sp_ratio >= NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD) {
> if (NUMA_PERIOD_SLOTS - lr_ratio >= NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD)
> speed up scanning
> else
> slow down scanning
> } else
> speed up scanning
>
> This follows your idea better?
>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
Powered by blists - more mailing lists