From: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] zone_reclaim_mode is always 0 by default
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:22:57 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090513152256.GM7601@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090513120729.5885.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:08:12PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] zone_reclaim_mode is always 0 by default
>
> Current linux policy is, if the machine has large remote node distance,
> zone_reclaim_mode is enabled by default because we've be able to assume to
> large distance mean large server until recently.
>
> Unfrotunately, recent modern x86 CPU (e.g. Core i7, Opeteron) have P2P transport
> memory controller. IOW it's NUMA from software view.
>
> Some Core i7 machine has large remote node distance and zone_reclaim don't
> fit desktop and small file server. it cause performance degression.
>
> Thus, zone_reclaim == 0 is better by default. sorry, HPC gusy.
> you need to turn zone_reclaim_mode on manually now.
I am _VERY_ concerned about this change in behavior as it has been the
default for a considerable period of time. I realize it is an easily
changed setting, but it is churn in the default behavior. Are there
any benefits for these small servers to have zone_reclaim turned on?
If you have a large node distance, I would expect they should benefit
_MORE_ than those with small or no node distances.
Are you seeing an impact of the load not distributing pages evenly across
processors instead of a reclaim effect (ie, a single threaded process
faulting in more memory than is node local and expecting those pages
to come from the other node first before doing reclaim)? Maybe there
is a different issue than the ones I am used to thinking about and I am
completely missing the point, please enlighten me.
If this proceeds forward, I would like to propose we at least leave
it on for SGI SN and UV hardware. I can provide a quick patch that
may be a bit ugly because it will depend upon arch specific #defines.
I have not investigated this, but any alternative suggestions are
certainly welcome. Currently, I am envisioning bringing something like
ia64_platform_is("sn2") and is_uv_system into page_alloc.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Please add me:
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] zone_reclaim_mode is always 0 by default
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:22:57 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090513152256.GM7601@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090513120729.5885.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:08:12PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] zone_reclaim_mode is always 0 by default
>
> Current linux policy is, if the machine has large remote node distance,
> zone_reclaim_mode is enabled by default because we've be able to assume to
> large distance mean large server until recently.
>
> Unfrotunately, recent modern x86 CPU (e.g. Core i7, Opeteron) have P2P transport
> memory controller. IOW it's NUMA from software view.
>
> Some Core i7 machine has large remote node distance and zone_reclaim don't
> fit desktop and small file server. it cause performance degression.
>
> Thus, zone_reclaim == 0 is better by default. sorry, HPC gusy.
> you need to turn zone_reclaim_mode on manually now.
I am _VERY_ concerned about this change in behavior as it has been the
default for a considerable period of time. I realize it is an easily
changed setting, but it is churn in the default behavior. Are there
any benefits for these small servers to have zone_reclaim turned on?
If you have a large node distance, I would expect they should benefit
_MORE_ than those with small or no node distances.
Are you seeing an impact of the load not distributing pages evenly across
processors instead of a reclaim effect (ie, a single threaded process
faulting in more memory than is node local and expecting those pages
to come from the other node first before doing reclaim)? Maybe there
is a different issue than the ones I am used to thinking about and I am
completely missing the point, please enlighten me.
If this proceeds forward, I would like to propose we at least leave
it on for SGI SN and UV hardware. I can provide a quick patch that
may be a bit ugly because it will depend upon arch specific #defines.
I have not investigated this, but any alternative suggestions are
certainly welcome. Currently, I am envisioning bringing something like
ia64_platform_is("sn2") and is_uv_system into page_alloc.c.
>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Please add me:
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-13 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 90+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-13 3:06 [PATCH 0/4] various zone_reclaim cleanup KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-13 3:06 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-13 3:06 ` [PATCH 1/4] vmscan: change the number of the unmapped files in zone reclaim KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-13 3:06 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-13 13:31 ` Rik van Riel
2009-05-13 13:31 ` Rik van Riel
2009-05-14 19:52 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-14 19:52 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-18 3:15 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-18 3:15 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-18 3:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-18 3:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-18 3:53 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-18 3:53 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-19 1:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-19 1:11 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-13 3:06 ` [PATCH 2/4] vmscan: drop PF_SWAPWRITE from zone_reclaim KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-13 3:06 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-13 13:35 ` Rik van Riel
2009-05-13 13:35 ` Rik van Riel
2009-05-14 19:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-14 19:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-18 3:33 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-18 3:33 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-13 3:07 ` [PATCH 3/4] vmscan: zone_reclaim use may_swap KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-13 3:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-13 11:26 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-05-13 11:26 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-05-13 14:43 ` Rik van Riel
2009-05-13 14:43 ` Rik van Riel
2009-05-14 19:59 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-14 19:59 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-18 3:35 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-18 3:35 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-13 3:08 ` [PATCH 4/4] zone_reclaim_mode is always 0 by default KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-13 3:08 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-13 14:47 ` Rik van Riel
2009-05-13 14:47 ` Rik van Riel
2009-05-14 8:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-14 8:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-14 11:48 ` Robin Holt
2009-05-14 11:48 ` Robin Holt
2009-05-14 12:02 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-14 12:02 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-13 15:22 ` Robin Holt [this message]
2009-05-13 15:22 ` Robin Holt
2009-05-14 20:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-14 20:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-14 20:23 ` Rik van Riel
2009-05-14 20:23 ` Rik van Riel
2009-05-14 20:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-14 20:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-15 1:02 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-15 1:02 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-15 10:51 ` Robin Holt
2009-05-15 10:51 ` Robin Holt
2009-05-19 2:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-19 2:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-20 14:00 ` Robin Holt
2009-05-20 14:00 ` Robin Holt
2009-05-21 2:44 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-21 2:44 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-21 13:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-21 13:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-21 13:57 ` Robin Holt
2009-05-21 13:57 ` Robin Holt
2009-05-24 13:44 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-24 13:44 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-15 18:01 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-15 18:01 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-05-18 3:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-18 3:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-19 1:16 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-05-19 1:16 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-05-19 2:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-19 2:53 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-19 2:57 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-19 2:57 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-19 3:38 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-05-19 3:38 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-05-19 4:30 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-19 4:30 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-19 5:06 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-05-19 5:06 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-05-19 7:09 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-19 7:09 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-05-19 7:15 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-05-19 7:15 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-05-18 9:09 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-05-18 9:09 ` Wu Fengguang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090513152256.GM7601@sgi.com \
--to=holt@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.