From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
Subject: RFC: eliminate zone->lock contention for will-it-scale/page_fault1 on big server
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:30:13 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180205053013.GB16980@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180124023050.20097-1-aaron.lu@intel.com>
In addition the the two patches, there are two more patches that I would
like to get some feedback.
The two patches are more radical: the 3rd deals with free path
zone->lock contention by avoiding doing any merge for order0 pages while
the 4th deals with allocation path zone->lock contention by taking
pcp->batch pages off the free_area order0 list without the need to
iterate the list.
Both patches are developed based on "the most time consuming part of
operations under zone->lock is cache misses on struct page".
The 3rd patch may be controversial but doesn't have correctness problem;
the 4th is in an early stage and serves only as a proof-of-concept.
Your comments are appreciated, thanks.
--
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: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
Subject: RFC: eliminate zone->lock contention for will-it-scale/page_fault1 on big server
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:30:13 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180205053013.GB16980@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180124023050.20097-1-aaron.lu@intel.com>
In addition the the two patches, there are two more patches that I would
like to get some feedback.
The two patches are more radical: the 3rd deals with free path
zone->lock contention by avoiding doing any merge for order0 pages while
the 4th deals with allocation path zone->lock contention by taking
pcp->batch pages off the free_area order0 list without the need to
iterate the list.
Both patches are developed based on "the most time consuming part of
operations under zone->lock is cache misses on struct page".
The 3rd patch may be controversial but doesn't have correctness problem;
the 4th is in an early stage and serves only as a proof-of-concept.
Your comments are appreciated, thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-05 5:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-24 2:30 [PATCH 1/2] free_pcppages_bulk: do not hold lock when picking pages to free Aaron Lu
2018-01-24 2:30 ` Aaron Lu
2018-01-24 2:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] free_pcppages_bulk: prefetch buddy while not holding lock Aaron Lu
2018-01-24 2:30 ` Aaron Lu
2018-01-24 16:43 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-24 16:43 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-24 16:57 ` Dave Hansen
2018-01-24 16:57 ` Dave Hansen
2018-01-24 18:19 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-24 18:19 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-24 19:23 ` Dave Hansen
2018-01-24 19:23 ` Dave Hansen
2018-01-24 21:12 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-24 21:12 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-25 7:25 ` [PATCH v2 " Aaron Lu
2018-01-25 7:25 ` Aaron Lu
2018-01-24 16:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] free_pcppages_bulk: do not hold lock when picking pages to free Mel Gorman
2018-01-24 16:40 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-25 7:21 ` [PATCH v2 " Aaron Lu
2018-01-25 7:21 ` Aaron Lu
2018-02-15 12:06 ` Mel Gorman
2018-02-15 12:06 ` Mel Gorman
2018-02-23 1:37 ` Aaron Lu
2018-02-23 1:37 ` Aaron Lu
2018-02-15 12:46 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-02-15 12:46 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-02-15 14:55 ` Mel Gorman
2018-02-15 14:55 ` Mel Gorman
2018-02-23 1:42 ` Aaron Lu
2018-02-23 1:42 ` Aaron Lu
2018-02-05 5:30 ` Aaron Lu [this message]
2018-02-05 5:30 ` RFC: eliminate zone->lock contention for will-it-scale/page_fault1 on big server Aaron Lu
2018-02-05 5:31 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] __free_one_page: skip merge for order-0 page unless compaction is in progress Aaron Lu
2018-02-05 5:31 ` Aaron Lu
2018-02-05 22:17 ` Dave Hansen
2018-02-05 22:17 ` Dave Hansen
2018-02-05 5:32 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] rmqueue_bulk: avoid touching page structures under zone->lock Aaron Lu
2018-02-05 5:32 ` Aaron Lu
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=20180205053013.GB16980@intel.com \
--to=aaron.lu@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=kemi.wang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=ying.huang@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.