[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191104084404.GA4131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:44:04 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 08/10] autonuma, memory tiering: Select hotter pages to
promote to fast memory node
On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 10:41:10AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> +#define NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST 16
> >> + int numa_scan_idx;
> >> + unsigned long numa_scan_jiffies[NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST];
> >> + unsigned long numa_scan_starts[NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST];
> >
> > Why 16? This is 4 cachelines.
>
> We want to keep the NUMA scanning history reasonably long. From
> task_scan_min(), the minimal interval between task_numa_work() running
> is about 100 ms by default. So we can keep 1600 ms history by default
> if NUMA_SCAN_NR_HIST is 16. If user choose to use smaller
> sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_size, then we can only keep shorter history.
> In general, we want to keep no less than 1000 ms history. So 16 appears
> like a reasonable choice for us. Any other suggestion?
This is very good information for Changelogs and comments :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists