From: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Reduce latencies and improve overall reclaim efficiency v2
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:50:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CD13E7B.5090804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101018135535.GC30667@csn.ul.ie>
On 10/18/2010 03:55 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 05:28:33PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>> Seing the patches Mel sent a few weeks ago I realized that this series
>> might be at least partially related to my reports in 1Q 2010 - so I ran my
>> testcase on a few kernels to provide you with some more backing data.
>
> Thanks very much for revisiting this.
>
>> Results are always the average of three iozone runs as it is known to be somewhat noisy - especially when affected by the issue I try to show here.
>> As discussed in detail in older threads the setup uses 16 disks and scales the number of concurrent iozone processes.
>> Processes are evenly distributed so that it always is one process per disk.
>> In the past we reported 40% to 80% degradation for the sequential read case based on 2.6.32 which can still be seen.
>> What we found was that the allocations for page cache with GFP_COLD flag loop a long time between try_to_free, get_page, reclaim as free makes some progress and due to that GFP_COLD allocations can loop and retry.
>> In addition my case had no writes at all, which forced congestion_wait to wait the full timeout all the time.
>>
>> Kernel (git) 4 8 16 deviation #16 case comment
>> linux-2.6.30 902694 1396073 1892624 base base
>> linux-2.6.32 752008 990425 932938 -50.7% impact as reported in 1Q 2010
>> linux-2.6.35 63532 71573 64083 -96.6% got even worse
>> linux-2.6.35.6 176485 174442 212102 -88.8% fixes useful, but still far away
>> linux-2.6.36-rc4-trace 119683 188997 187012 -90.1% still bad
>> linux-2.6.36-rc4-fix 884431 1114073 1470659 -22.3% Mels fixes help a lot!
>>
[...]
> If all goes according to plan,
> kernel 2.6.37-rc1 will be of interest. Thanks again.
Here a measurement with 2.6.37-rc1 as confirmation of progress:
linux-2.6.37-rc1 876588 1161876 1643430 -13.1% even better than 2.6.36-fix
That means 2.6.37-rc1 really shows what we hoped for.
And it eventually even turned out a little bit better than 2.6.36 + your fixes.
--
Grüsse / regards, Christian Ehrhardt
IBM Linux Technology Center, System z Linux Performance
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Reduce latencies and improve overall reclaim efficiency v2
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:50:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CD13E7B.5090804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101018135535.GC30667@csn.ul.ie>
On 10/18/2010 03:55 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 05:28:33PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>> Seing the patches Mel sent a few weeks ago I realized that this series
>> might be at least partially related to my reports in 1Q 2010 - so I ran my
>> testcase on a few kernels to provide you with some more backing data.
>
> Thanks very much for revisiting this.
>
>> Results are always the average of three iozone runs as it is known to be somewhat noisy - especially when affected by the issue I try to show here.
>> As discussed in detail in older threads the setup uses 16 disks and scales the number of concurrent iozone processes.
>> Processes are evenly distributed so that it always is one process per disk.
>> In the past we reported 40% to 80% degradation for the sequential read case based on 2.6.32 which can still be seen.
>> What we found was that the allocations for page cache with GFP_COLD flag loop a long time between try_to_free, get_page, reclaim as free makes some progress and due to that GFP_COLD allocations can loop and retry.
>> In addition my case had no writes at all, which forced congestion_wait to wait the full timeout all the time.
>>
>> Kernel (git) 4 8 16 deviation #16 case comment
>> linux-2.6.30 902694 1396073 1892624 base base
>> linux-2.6.32 752008 990425 932938 -50.7% impact as reported in 1Q 2010
>> linux-2.6.35 63532 71573 64083 -96.6% got even worse
>> linux-2.6.35.6 176485 174442 212102 -88.8% fixes useful, but still far away
>> linux-2.6.36-rc4-trace 119683 188997 187012 -90.1% still bad
>> linux-2.6.36-rc4-fix 884431 1114073 1470659 -22.3% Mels fixes help a lot!
>>
[...]
> If all goes according to plan,
> kernel 2.6.37-rc1 will be of interest. Thanks again.
Here a measurement with 2.6.37-rc1 as confirmation of progress:
linux-2.6.37-rc1 876588 1161876 1643430 -13.1% even better than 2.6.36-fix
That means 2.6.37-rc1 really shows what we hoped for.
And it eventually even turned out a little bit better than 2.6.36 + your fixes.
--
Grüsse / regards, Christian Ehrhardt
IBM Linux Technology Center, System z Linux Performance
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Reduce latencies and improve overall reclaim efficiency v2
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:50:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CD13E7B.5090804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101018135535.GC30667@csn.ul.ie>
On 10/18/2010 03:55 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 05:28:33PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>> Seing the patches Mel sent a few weeks ago I realized that this series
>> might be at least partially related to my reports in 1Q 2010 - so I ran my
>> testcase on a few kernels to provide you with some more backing data.
>
> Thanks very much for revisiting this.
>
>> Results are always the average of three iozone runs as it is known to be somewhat noisy - especially when affected by the issue I try to show here.
>> As discussed in detail in older threads the setup uses 16 disks and scales the number of concurrent iozone processes.
>> Processes are evenly distributed so that it always is one process per disk.
>> In the past we reported 40% to 80% degradation for the sequential read case based on 2.6.32 which can still be seen.
>> What we found was that the allocations for page cache with GFP_COLD flag loop a long time between try_to_free, get_page, reclaim as free makes some progress and due to that GFP_COLD allocations can loop and retry.
>> In addition my case had no writes at all, which forced congestion_wait to wait the full timeout all the time.
>>
>> Kernel (git) 4 8 16 deviation #16 case comment
>> linux-2.6.30 902694 1396073 1892624 base base
>> linux-2.6.32 752008 990425 932938 -50.7% impact as reported in 1Q 2010
>> linux-2.6.35 63532 71573 64083 -96.6% got even worse
>> linux-2.6.35.6 176485 174442 212102 -88.8% fixes useful, but still far away
>> linux-2.6.36-rc4-trace 119683 188997 187012 -90.1% still bad
>> linux-2.6.36-rc4-fix 884431 1114073 1470659 -22.3% Mels fixes help a lot!
>>
[...]
> If all goes according to plan,
> kernel 2.6.37-rc1 will be of interest. Thanks again.
Here a measurement with 2.6.37-rc1 as confirmation of progress:
linux-2.6.37-rc1 876588 1161876 1643430 -13.1% even better than 2.6.36-fix
That means 2.6.37-rc1 really shows what we hoped for.
And it eventually even turned out a little bit better than 2.6.36 + your fixes.
--
Grusse / regards, Christian Ehrhardt
IBM Linux Technology Center, System z Linux Performance
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-03 10:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-15 12:27 [PATCH 0/8] Reduce latencies and improve overall reclaim efficiency v2 Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` [PATCH 1/8] tracing, vmscan: Add trace events for LRU list shrinking Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` [PATCH 2/8] writeback: Account for time spent congestion_waited Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` [PATCH 3/8] vmscan: Synchronous lumpy reclaim should not call congestion_wait() Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` [PATCH 4/8] vmscan: Narrow the scenarios lumpy reclaim uses synchrounous reclaim Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` [PATCH 5/8] vmscan: Remove dead code in shrink_inactive_list() Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` [PATCH 6/8] vmscan: isolated_lru_pages() stop neighbour search if neighbour cannot be isolated Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` [PATCH 7/8] writeback: Do not sleep on the congestion queue if there are no congested BDIs Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-16 7:59 ` Minchan Kim
2010-09-16 7:59 ` Minchan Kim
2010-09-16 8:23 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-16 8:23 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` [PATCH 8/8] writeback: Do not sleep on the congestion queue if there are no congested BDIs or if significant congestion is not being encountered in the current zone Mel Gorman
2010-09-15 12:27 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-16 8:13 ` Minchan Kim
2010-09-16 8:13 ` Minchan Kim
2010-09-16 9:18 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-16 9:18 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-16 14:11 ` Minchan Kim
2010-09-16 14:11 ` Minchan Kim
2010-09-16 15:18 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-16 15:18 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-16 22:28 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-16 22:28 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-20 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-20 9:52 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-21 21:44 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-21 21:44 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-21 22:10 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-21 22:10 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-21 22:24 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-21 22:24 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-20 13:05 ` [PATCH] writeback: Do not sleep on the congestion queue if there are no congested BDIs or if significant congestion is not being encounted in the current zone fix Mel Gorman
2010-09-20 13:05 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-16 22:28 ` [PATCH 0/8] Reduce latencies and improve overall reclaim efficiency v2 Andrew Morton
2010-09-16 22:28 ` Andrew Morton
2010-09-17 7:52 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-17 7:52 ` Mel Gorman
2010-10-14 15:28 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-10-14 15:28 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-10-14 15:28 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-10-18 13:55 ` Mel Gorman
2010-10-18 13:55 ` Mel Gorman
2010-10-22 12:29 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-10-22 12:29 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-10-22 12:29 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-11-03 10:50 ` Christian Ehrhardt [this message]
2010-11-03 10:50 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-11-03 10:50 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2010-11-10 14:37 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-10 14:37 ` 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=4CD13E7B.5090804@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@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-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.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.