[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87h6nnvyfj.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:33:52 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: PCP high auto-tuning
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 21:32:35 +0800 "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> > : It's possible that PCP high auto-tuning doesn't work well for some
>> > : workloads. So, when PCP high is tuned by hand via the sysctl knob,
>> > : the auto-tuning will be disabled. The PCP high set by hand will be
>> > : used instead.
>> >
>> > Is it a bit hacky to disable autotuning when the user alters
>> > pcp-high? Would it be cleaner to have a separate on/off knob for
>> > autotuning?
>>
>> This was suggested by Mel Gormon,
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20230714140710.5xbesq6xguhcbyvi@techsingularity.net/
>>
>> "
>> I'm not opposed to having an adaptive pcp->high in concept. I think it would
>> be best to disable adaptive tuning if percpu_pagelist_high_fraction is set
>> though. I expect that users of that tunable are rare and that if it *is*
>> used that there is a very good reason for it.
>> "
>>
>> Do you think that this is reasonable?
>
> I suppose so, if it's documented!
>
> Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/vm.rst describes
> percpu_pagelist_high_fraction.
Sure. Will add document about auto-tuning behavior in the above
document.
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists