All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@intel.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] zone_reclaim is always 0 by default
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 12:24:09 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090604122409.GK29447@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090604192236.9761.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

Acked-by: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>


On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 07:23:15PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
...
> Actually, zone_reclaim_mode=1 mean "I dislike remote node allocation rather than
> disk access", it makes performance improvement to HPC workload.
> but it makes performance degression to desktop, file server and web server.

I still disagree with this statement, but I don't care that much.
Why not something more to the effect of:

Setting zone_reclaim_mode=1 causes memory allocations on a nearly
exhausted node to do direct reclaim within that node before attempting
off-node allocations.  For work loads where most pages are clean in
page cache and easily reclaimed, this can result excessive disk activity
versus a more fair node memory balance.

If you disagree, don't respond, just ignore.

...
> --- a/include/linux/topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/topology.h
> @@ -54,12 +54,7 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
>  #define node_distance(from,to)	((from) = (to) ? LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE)
>  #endif
>  #ifndef RECLAIM_DISTANCE
> -/*
> - * If the distance between nodes in a system is larger than RECLAIM_DISTANCE
> - * (in whatever arch specific measurement units returned by node_distance())
> - * then switch on zone reclaim on boot.
> - */
> -#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20
> +#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE INT_MAX

Why remove this comment?  It seems more-or-less a reasonable statement.

Thanks,
Robin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] zone_reclaim is always 0 by default
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:24:09 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090604122409.GK29447@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090604192236.9761.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

Acked-by: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>


On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 07:23:15PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
...
> Actually, zone_reclaim_mode=1 mean "I dislike remote node allocation rather than
> disk access", it makes performance improvement to HPC workload.
> but it makes performance degression to desktop, file server and web server.

I still disagree with this statement, but I don't care that much.
Why not something more to the effect of:

Setting zone_reclaim_mode=1 causes memory allocations on a nearly
exhausted node to do direct reclaim within that node before attempting
off-node allocations.  For work loads where most pages are clean in
page cache and easily reclaimed, this can result excessive disk activity
versus a more fair node memory balance.

If you disagree, don't respond, just ignore.

...
> --- a/include/linux/topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/topology.h
> @@ -54,12 +54,7 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
>  #define node_distance(from,to)	((from) == (to) ? LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE)
>  #endif
>  #ifndef RECLAIM_DISTANCE
> -/*
> - * If the distance between nodes in a system is larger than RECLAIM_DISTANCE
> - * (in whatever arch specific measurement units returned by node_distance())
> - * then switch on zone reclaim on boot.
> - */
> -#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20
> +#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE INT_MAX

Why remove this comment?  It seems more-or-less a reasonable statement.

Thanks,
Robin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@intel.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] zone_reclaim is always 0 by default
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:24:09 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090604122409.GK29447@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090604192236.9761.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

Acked-by: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>


On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 07:23:15PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
...
> Actually, zone_reclaim_mode=1 mean "I dislike remote node allocation rather than
> disk access", it makes performance improvement to HPC workload.
> but it makes performance degression to desktop, file server and web server.

I still disagree with this statement, but I don't care that much.
Why not something more to the effect of:

Setting zone_reclaim_mode=1 causes memory allocations on a nearly
exhausted node to do direct reclaim within that node before attempting
off-node allocations.  For work loads where most pages are clean in
page cache and easily reclaimed, this can result excessive disk activity
versus a more fair node memory balance.

If you disagree, don't respond, just ignore.

...
> --- a/include/linux/topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/topology.h
> @@ -54,12 +54,7 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
>  #define node_distance(from,to)	((from) == (to) ? LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE)
>  #endif
>  #ifndef RECLAIM_DISTANCE
> -/*
> - * If the distance between nodes in a system is larger than RECLAIM_DISTANCE
> - * (in whatever arch specific measurement units returned by node_distance())
> - * then switch on zone reclaim on boot.
> - */
> -#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20
> +#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE INT_MAX

Why remove this comment?  It seems more-or-less a reasonable statement.

Thanks,
Robin

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@intel.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] zone_reclaim is always 0 by default
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:24:09 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090604122409.GK29447@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090604192236.9761.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

Acked-by: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>


On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 07:23:15PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
...
> Actually, zone_reclaim_mode=1 mean "I dislike remote node allocation rather than
> disk access", it makes performance improvement to HPC workload.
> but it makes performance degression to desktop, file server and web server.

I still disagree with this statement, but I don't care that much.
Why not something more to the effect of:

Setting zone_reclaim_mode=1 causes memory allocations on a nearly
exhausted node to do direct reclaim within that node before attempting
off-node allocations.  For work loads where most pages are clean in
page cache and easily reclaimed, this can result excessive disk activity
versus a more fair node memory balance.

If you disagree, don't respond, just ignore.

...
> --- a/include/linux/topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/topology.h
> @@ -54,12 +54,7 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
>  #define node_distance(from,to)	((from) == (to) ? LOCAL_DISTANCE : REMOTE_DISTANCE)
>  #endif
>  #ifndef RECLAIM_DISTANCE
> -/*
> - * If the distance between nodes in a system is larger than RECLAIM_DISTANCE
> - * (in whatever arch specific measurement units returned by node_distance())
> - * then switch on zone reclaim on boot.
> - */
> -#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE 20
> +#define RECLAIM_DISTANCE INT_MAX

Why remove this comment?  It seems more-or-less a reasonable statement.

Thanks,
Robin

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-06-04 12:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-06-04 10:23 [PATCH v4] zone_reclaim is always 0 by default KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-04 10:23 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-04 10:23 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-04 10:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-04 10:59   ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-04 10:59   ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-04 10:59   ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-04 12:24 ` Robin Holt [this message]
2009-06-04 12:24   ` Robin Holt
2009-06-04 12:24   ` Robin Holt
2009-06-04 12:24   ` Robin Holt
2009-06-08 11:50 ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-08 11:50   ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-08 11:50   ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-08 11:50   ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-09  9:55   ` Robin Holt
2009-06-09  9:55     ` Robin Holt
2009-06-09  9:55     ` Robin Holt
2009-06-09  9:55     ` Robin Holt
2009-06-09 10:37     ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 10:37       ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 10:37       ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 10:37       ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 12:02       ` Robin Holt
2009-06-09 12:02         ` Robin Holt
2009-06-09 12:02         ` Robin Holt
2009-06-09 12:02         ` Robin Holt
2009-06-09 19:47         ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-09 19:47           ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-09 19:47           ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-09 19:47           ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-09 13:48   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-09 13:48     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-09 13:48     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-09 13:48     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-06-09 14:38     ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 14:38       ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 14:38       ` Mel Gorman
2009-06-09 14:38       ` Mel Gorman

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=20090604122409.GK29447@sgi.com \
    --to=holt@sgi.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=yanmin.zhang@intel.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.