From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@hds.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"mel@csn.ul.ie" <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
"kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
"rdunlap@xenotime.net" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
"dle-develop@lists.sourceforge.net"
<dle-develop@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@hds.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Tunable watermark
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:16:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D38D070.2050802@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9C3A30A295@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com>
On 01/07/2011 05:03 PM, Satoru Moriya wrote:
> The result is following.
>
> | default | case 1 | case 2 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> wmark_min_kbytes | 5752 | 5752 | 5752 |
> wmark_low_kbytes | 7190 | 16384 | 32768 | (KB)
> wmark_high_kbytes | 8628 | 20480 | 40960 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> real | 503 | 364 | 337 |
> user | 3 | 5 | 4 | (msec)
> sys | 153 | 149 | 146 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> page fault | 32768 | 32768 | 32768 |
> kswapd_wakeup | 1809 | 335 | 228 | (times)
> direct reclaim | 5 | 0 | 0 |
>
> As you can see, direct reclaim was performed 5 times and
> its exec time was 503 msec in the default case. On the other
> hand, in case 1 (large delta case ) no direct reclaim was
> performed and its exec time was 364 msec.
Saving 1.5 seconds on a one-off workload is probably not
worth the complexity of giving a system administrator
yet another set of tunables to mess with.
However, I suspect it may be a good idea if the kernel
could adjust these watermarks automatically, since direct
reclaim could lead to quite a big performance penalty.
I do not know which events should be used to increase and
decrease the watermarks, but I have some ideas:
- direct reclaim (increase)
- kswapd has trouble freeing pages (increase)
- kswapd frees enough memory at DEF_PRIORITY (decrease)
- next to no direct reclaim events in the last N (1000?)
reclaim events (decrease)
I guess we will also need to be sure that the watermarks
are never raised above some sane upper threshold. Maybe
4x or 5x the default?
--
All rights reversed
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@hds.com>
Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"mel@csn.ul.ie" <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
"kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com" <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
"rdunlap@xenotime.net" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
"dle-develop@lists.sourceforge.net"
<dle-develop@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@hds.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Tunable watermark
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 19:16:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D38D070.2050802@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9C3A30A295@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com>
On 01/07/2011 05:03 PM, Satoru Moriya wrote:
> The result is following.
>
> | default | case 1 | case 2 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> wmark_min_kbytes | 5752 | 5752 | 5752 |
> wmark_low_kbytes | 7190 | 16384 | 32768 | (KB)
> wmark_high_kbytes | 8628 | 20480 | 40960 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> real | 503 | 364 | 337 |
> user | 3 | 5 | 4 | (msec)
> sys | 153 | 149 | 146 |
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> page fault | 32768 | 32768 | 32768 |
> kswapd_wakeup | 1809 | 335 | 228 | (times)
> direct reclaim | 5 | 0 | 0 |
>
> As you can see, direct reclaim was performed 5 times and
> its exec time was 503 msec in the default case. On the other
> hand, in case 1 (large delta case ) no direct reclaim was
> performed and its exec time was 364 msec.
Saving 1.5 seconds on a one-off workload is probably not
worth the complexity of giving a system administrator
yet another set of tunables to mess with.
However, I suspect it may be a good idea if the kernel
could adjust these watermarks automatically, since direct
reclaim could lead to quite a big performance penalty.
I do not know which events should be used to increase and
decrease the watermarks, but I have some ideas:
- direct reclaim (increase)
- kswapd has trouble freeing pages (increase)
- kswapd frees enough memory at DEF_PRIORITY (decrease)
- next to no direct reclaim events in the last N (1000?)
reclaim events (decrease)
I guess we will also need to be sure that the watermarks
are never raised above some sane upper threshold. Maybe
4x or 5x the default?
--
All rights reversed
--
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:[~2011-01-21 0:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-07 22:03 [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Tunable watermark Satoru Moriya
2011-01-07 22:03 ` Satoru Moriya
2011-01-07 22:04 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Add explanation about min_free_kbytes to clarify its effect Satoru Moriya
2011-01-07 22:04 ` Satoru Moriya
2011-01-07 22:27 ` David Rientjes
2011-01-07 22:27 ` David Rientjes
2011-01-07 22:07 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/2] Make watermarks tunable separately Satoru Moriya
2011-01-07 22:07 ` Satoru Moriya
2011-01-07 22:23 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/2] Tunable watermark David Rientjes
2011-01-07 22:23 ` David Rientjes
2011-01-07 22:35 ` Ying Han
2011-01-07 22:35 ` Ying Han
2011-01-07 22:39 ` David Rientjes
2011-01-07 22:39 ` David Rientjes
2011-01-13 22:05 ` Satoru Moriya
2011-01-13 22:05 ` Satoru Moriya
2011-01-13 22:24 ` David Rientjes
2011-01-13 22:24 ` David Rientjes
2011-01-13 22:05 ` Satoru Moriya
2011-01-13 22:05 ` Satoru Moriya
2011-01-13 22:20 ` David Rientjes
2011-01-13 22:20 ` David Rientjes
2011-01-21 0:16 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2011-01-21 0:16 ` Rik van Riel
2011-02-10 18:30 ` Satoru Moriya
2011-02-10 18:30 ` Satoru Moriya
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=4D38D070.2050802@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dle-develop@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=satoru.moriya@hds.com \
--cc=seiji.aguchi@hds.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.