[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bltsar0e.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 18:13:21 +0800
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> 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 :-)
Thanks! Will do this in the next version.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists