All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Holasek <pholasek@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
	Izik Eidus <izik.eidus@ravellosystems.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KSM: numa awareness sysfs knob
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:37:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120915173752.GA10698@stainedmachine.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120914150248.59e9757d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:

Hi Andrew,

at first thanks for your review!

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 23:22:47 +0200
> Petr Holasek <pholasek@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Introduces new sysfs boolean knob /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/merge_nodes
> 
> I wonder if merge_across_nodes would be a better name.
> 

Agreed.

> > which control merging pages across different numa nodes.
> > When it is set to zero only pages from the same node are merged,
> > otherwise pages from all nodes can be merged together (default behavior).
> > 
> > Typical use-case could be a lot of KVM guests on NUMA machine
> > and cpus from more distant nodes would have significant increase
> > of access latency to the merged ksm page. Sysfs knob was choosen
> > for higher scalability.
> 
> Well...  what is the use case for merge_nodes=0?  IOW, why shouldn't we
> make this change non-optional and avoid the sysfs knob?

I assume that there are still some users who want to use KSM mainly for
saving of physical memory and access latency is not priority for them.

> > 
> > This patch also adds share_all sysfs knob which can be used for adding
> > all anon vmas of all processes in system to ksmd scan queue. Knob can be
> > triggered only when run knob is set to zero.
> 
> I really don't understand this share_all thing.  From reading the code,
> it is a once-off self-resetting trigger thing.  Why?  How is one to use
> this?  What's the benefit?  What's the effect?

I introduced it on the basis of our discussion about v2 patch
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/29/426 as some knob which can madvise all anon
mappings with MADV_MERGEABLE. But I might have misunderstood your idea.
If you don't like current self-resetting trigger we either can implement it
as stable 0/1 knob that would madvise all current and future anon mappings
when set to 1 or completely exclude this share_all thing from the patch.

I am going to fix all all mistakes you pointed out in your review as well as
add more verbose documentation and comments in next version.

thanks,
Petr H

--
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>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Petr Holasek <pholasek@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
	Izik Eidus <izik.eidus@ravellosystems.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KSM: numa awareness sysfs knob
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:37:53 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120915173752.GA10698@stainedmachine.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120914150248.59e9757d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Andrew Morton wrote:

Hi Andrew,

at first thanks for your review!

> On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 23:22:47 +0200
> Petr Holasek <pholasek@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Introduces new sysfs boolean knob /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/merge_nodes
> 
> I wonder if merge_across_nodes would be a better name.
> 

Agreed.

> > which control merging pages across different numa nodes.
> > When it is set to zero only pages from the same node are merged,
> > otherwise pages from all nodes can be merged together (default behavior).
> > 
> > Typical use-case could be a lot of KVM guests on NUMA machine
> > and cpus from more distant nodes would have significant increase
> > of access latency to the merged ksm page. Sysfs knob was choosen
> > for higher scalability.
> 
> Well...  what is the use case for merge_nodes=0?  IOW, why shouldn't we
> make this change non-optional and avoid the sysfs knob?

I assume that there are still some users who want to use KSM mainly for
saving of physical memory and access latency is not priority for them.

> > 
> > This patch also adds share_all sysfs knob which can be used for adding
> > all anon vmas of all processes in system to ksmd scan queue. Knob can be
> > triggered only when run knob is set to zero.
> 
> I really don't understand this share_all thing.  From reading the code,
> it is a once-off self-resetting trigger thing.  Why?  How is one to use
> this?  What's the benefit?  What's the effect?

I introduced it on the basis of our discussion about v2 patch
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/29/426 as some knob which can madvise all anon
mappings with MADV_MERGEABLE. But I might have misunderstood your idea.
If you don't like current self-resetting trigger we either can implement it
as stable 0/1 knob that would madvise all current and future anon mappings
when set to 1 or completely exclude this share_all thing from the patch.

I am going to fix all all mistakes you pointed out in your review as well as
add more verbose documentation and comments in next version.

thanks,
Petr H

  reply	other threads:[~2012-09-15 17:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-14 21:22 [PATCH v3] KSM: numa awareness sysfs knob Petr Holasek
2012-09-14 21:22 ` Petr Holasek
2012-09-14 22:02 ` Andrew Morton
2012-09-14 22:02   ` Andrew Morton
2012-09-15 17:37   ` Petr Holasek [this message]
2012-09-15 17:37     ` Petr Holasek

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=20120915173752.GA10698@stainedmachine.redhat.com \
    --to=pholasek@redhat.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=anton@redhat.com \
    --cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=izik.eidus@ravellosystems.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --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.