From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: page allocator: Drain per-cpu lists after direct reclaim allocation fails
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:17:46 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100910061746.GE705@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100909123910.GP29263@csn.ul.ie>
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:39:10PM +0100, wrote:
> It has been pointed out that the fix potentially increases the number of
> IPIs sent. On larger machines, I worry that these delays could be severe
> and we'll see other problems down the line. Hence, I'd like to reduce
> the number of calls to drain_all_pages() without eliminating them
> entirely. I'm currently in the process of testing the following patch
> but can you try it as well please?
>
> In particular, I am curious to see if the performance of fs_mark
> improves any and if the interrupt counts drop as a result of the patch.
The interrupt counts have definitely dropped - this is after
creating 200M inodes and then removing them all:
CAL: 11154 10596 11804 15366 10048 12916 13049 9864
That's in the same ballpark as a single 50M inode create run without
the patch.
Performance seems a bit lower, though (2-3% maybe less), and CPU
usage seems a bit higher (stays much closer to 800% than 700-750%
without the patch). Those are subjective observations from watching
graphs and counters, so take them with a grain of salt.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: page allocator: Drain per-cpu lists after direct reclaim allocation fails
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:17:46 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100910061746.GE705@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100909123910.GP29263@csn.ul.ie>
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:39:10PM +0100, wrote:
> It has been pointed out that the fix potentially increases the number of
> IPIs sent. On larger machines, I worry that these delays could be severe
> and we'll see other problems down the line. Hence, I'd like to reduce
> the number of calls to drain_all_pages() without eliminating them
> entirely. I'm currently in the process of testing the following patch
> but can you try it as well please?
>
> In particular, I am curious to see if the performance of fs_mark
> improves any and if the interrupt counts drop as a result of the patch.
The interrupt counts have definitely dropped - this is after
creating 200M inodes and then removing them all:
CAL: 11154 10596 11804 15366 10048 12916 13049 9864
That's in the same ballpark as a single 50M inode create run without
the patch.
Performance seems a bit lower, though (2-3% maybe less), and CPU
usage seems a bit higher (stays much closer to 800% than 700-750%
without the patch). Those are subjective observations from watching
graphs and counters, so take them with a grain of salt.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.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:[~2010-09-10 6:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 104+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-03 9:08 [PATCH 0/3] Reduce watermark-related problems with the per-cpu allocator V4 Mel Gorman
2010-09-03 9:08 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-03 9:08 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm: page allocator: Update free page counters after pages are placed on the free list Mel Gorman
2010-09-03 9:08 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-03 22:38 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-03 22:38 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-05 18:06 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-05 18:06 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-03 9:08 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm: page allocator: Calculate a better estimate of NR_FREE_PAGES when memory is low and kswapd is awake Mel Gorman
2010-09-03 9:08 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-03 22:55 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-03 22:55 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-03 23:17 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-09-03 23:17 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-09-03 23:28 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-03 23:28 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-04 0:54 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-09-04 0:54 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-09-05 18:12 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-05 18:12 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-03 9:08 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm: page allocator: Drain per-cpu lists after direct reclaim allocation fails Mel Gorman
2010-09-03 9:08 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-03 23:00 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-03 23:00 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-04 2:25 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-04 2:25 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-04 3:21 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-04 3:21 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-04 7:58 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-04 7:58 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-04 8:14 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-04 8:14 ` Dave Chinner
[not found] ` <20100905015400.GA10714@localhost>
[not found] ` <20100905021555.GG705@dastard>
[not found] ` <20100905060539.GA17450@localhost>
[not found] ` <20100905131447.GJ705@dastard>
2010-09-05 13:45 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-05 13:45 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-05 23:33 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-05 23:33 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-06 4:02 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-06 4:02 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-06 8:40 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-06 8:40 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-06 21:50 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-06 21:50 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-08 8:49 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-08 8:49 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-09 12:39 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-09 12:39 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-10 6:17 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-09-10 6:17 ` Dave Chinner
2010-09-07 14:23 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-09-07 14:23 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-09-08 2:13 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-08 2:13 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-04 3:23 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-04 3:23 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-04 3:59 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-04 3:59 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-04 4:37 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-04 4:37 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-05 18:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-05 18:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-05 18:14 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-05 18:14 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-08 7:43 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-09-08 7:43 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-09-08 20:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-09-08 20:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-09-09 12:41 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-09 12:41 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-09 13:45 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-09-09 13:45 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-09-09 13:55 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-09 13:55 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-09 14:32 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-09-09 14:32 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-09-09 15:05 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-09 15:05 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-10 2:56 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-09-10 2:56 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-09-03 23:05 ` [PATCH 0/3] Reduce watermark-related problems with the per-cpu allocator V4 Andrew Morton
2010-09-03 23:05 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-21 11:17 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-21 11:17 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-21 12:58 ` [stable] " Greg KH
2010-09-21 12:58 ` Greg KH
2010-09-21 14:23 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-21 14:23 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-23 18:49 ` Greg KH
2010-09-23 18:49 ` Greg KH
2010-09-24 9:14 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-24 9:14 ` Mel Gorman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-08-31 17:37 [PATCH 0/3] Reduce watermark-related problems with the per-cpu allocator V3 Mel Gorman
2010-08-31 17:37 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm: page allocator: Drain per-cpu lists after direct reclaim allocation fails Mel Gorman
2010-08-31 17:37 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-31 18:26 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-08-31 18:26 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-08-23 8:00 [PATCH 0/3] Reduce watermark-related problems with the per-cpu allocator V2 Mel Gorman
2010-08-23 8:00 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm: page allocator: Drain per-cpu lists after direct reclaim allocation fails Mel Gorman
2010-08-23 8:00 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-23 23:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-23 23:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-08-16 9:42 [RFC PATCH 0/3] Reduce watermark-related problems with the per-cpu allocator Mel Gorman
2010-08-16 9:42 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm: page allocator: Drain per-cpu lists after direct reclaim allocation fails Mel Gorman
2010-08-16 14:50 ` Rik van Riel
2010-08-17 2:57 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-18 3:02 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2010-08-19 14:47 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-19 15:10 ` 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=20100910061746.GE705@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.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.