From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Balbir Singh Subject: Re: [RFC][ only for review ] memory controller bacground reclaim [0/5] (Does anyone have an idea about throttling ?) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:12:51 +0530 Message-ID: <474ECFEB.9090202@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20071128174923.1f54f53f.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20071129205324.f9e7ab4e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Reply-To: balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20071129205324.f9e7ab4e.kamezawa.hiroyu-+CUm20s59erQFUHtdCDX3A@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Cc: "containers-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org" , Lee Schermerhorn , "yamamoto-jCdQPDEk3idL9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org" , menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Pavel Emelianov List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:49:23 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote: > >> Hi, this set is for memory controller background reclaim. >> >> Merged YAMAMOTO-san's version onto 2.6.23-rc3-mm1 + my NUMA patch. >> And splitted to several sets. >> >> Major changes from his one is >> - use kthread instead of work_queue >> - adjust high/low watermark when limit changes automatically >> and set default value. (a user can specify his own later.) >> > FYI rather than RFC. > > I wrote attached patch and run kernbench on 8CPU/2Node NUMA/ia64. > It does make -j 32. > > Memory limitation was 800M. Low/High watermark here was 750M/780M. > > == These numbers are stable to some extent.== > 2.6.24-rc3-mm2: (Limit: 800M) > Average Optimal -j 32 Load Run: > Elapsed Time 358.933---------------------------(*) > User Time 1069.63 > System Time 140.667 > Percent CPU 337.333 > Context Switches 220821 > Sleeps 196912 > > 2.6.24-rc3-mm2 + throttle (Limit:800M) > Average Optimal -j 32 Load Run: > Elapsed Time 266.697---------------------------(*) > User Time 1105.39 > System Time 124.423 > Percent CPU 471.667 > Context Switches 251797 > Sleeps 231038 > > 2.6.24-rc3-mm2 + throttle + High/Low watermark. > (low:750M High:780M Limit:800M) > Average Optimal -j 32 Load Run: > Elapsed Time 266.844---------------------------(*) > User Time 1112.9 > System Time 112.273 > Percent CPU 473.667 > Context Switches 251795 > Sleeps 220339 > == > Looks good to me, was there any impact on memory.failcnt? > Seems throttling reclaim has some good effect (for kernbench). > Does anyone have an idea for throttling reclaiming of memory controller ? > In the past I've run workloads of apache+geronimo+open trade, I've run linear sequential memory access tests, kernbench, lmbench, database benchmarks (DOTS, pgbench, etc). I think Lee Schermerhorn has a very interesting setup (that I need to learn to replicate). > Thanks, > -Kame -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL