From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/19] list_lru: per-node list infrastructure
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:51:03 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50F89C77.4010101@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130118001029.GK2498@dastard>
On 01/17/2013 04:10 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> and we end up with:
>
> lru_add(struct lru_list *lru, struct lru_item *item)
> {
> node_id = min(object_to_nid(item), lru->numnodes);
>
> __lru_add(lru, node_id, &item->global_list);
> if (memcg) {
> memcg_lru = find_memcg_lru(lru->memcg_lists, memcg_id)
> __lru_add_(memcg_lru, node_id, &item->memcg_list);
> }
> }
A follow up thought: If we have multiple memcgs, and global pressure
kicks in (meaning none of them are particularly under pressure),
shouldn't we try to maintain fairness among them and reclaim equal
proportions from them all the same way we do with sb's these days, for
instance?
I would argue that if your memcg is small, the list of dentries is
small: scan it all for the nodes you want shouldn't hurt.
if the memcg is big, it will have per-node lists anyway.
Given that, do we really want to pay the price of two list_heads in the
objects?
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/19] list_lru: per-node list infrastructure
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:51:03 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50F89C77.4010101@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130118001029.GK2498@dastard>
On 01/17/2013 04:10 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> and we end up with:
>
> lru_add(struct lru_list *lru, struct lru_item *item)
> {
> node_id = min(object_to_nid(item), lru->numnodes);
>
> __lru_add(lru, node_id, &item->global_list);
> if (memcg) {
> memcg_lru = find_memcg_lru(lru->memcg_lists, memcg_id)
> __lru_add_(memcg_lru, node_id, &item->memcg_list);
> }
> }
A follow up thought: If we have multiple memcgs, and global pressure
kicks in (meaning none of them are particularly under pressure),
shouldn't we try to maintain fairness among them and reclaim equal
proportions from them all the same way we do with sb's these days, for
instance?
I would argue that if your memcg is small, the list of dentries is
small: scan it all for the nodes you want shouldn't hurt.
if the memcg is big, it will have per-node lists anyway.
Given that, do we really want to pay the price of two list_heads in the
objects?
--
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: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/19] list_lru: per-node list infrastructure
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:51:03 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50F89C77.4010101@parallels.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130118001029.GK2498@dastard>
On 01/17/2013 04:10 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> and we end up with:
>
> lru_add(struct lru_list *lru, struct lru_item *item)
> {
> node_id = min(object_to_nid(item), lru->numnodes);
>
> __lru_add(lru, node_id, &item->global_list);
> if (memcg) {
> memcg_lru = find_memcg_lru(lru->memcg_lists, memcg_id)
> __lru_add_(memcg_lru, node_id, &item->memcg_list);
> }
> }
A follow up thought: If we have multiple memcgs, and global pressure
kicks in (meaning none of them are particularly under pressure),
shouldn't we try to maintain fairness among them and reclaim equal
proportions from them all the same way we do with sb's these days, for
instance?
I would argue that if your memcg is small, the list of dentries is
small: scan it all for the nodes you want shouldn't hurt.
if the memcg is big, it will have per-node lists anyway.
Given that, do we really want to pay the price of two list_heads in the
objects?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-18 0:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 163+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-27 23:14 [RFC, PATCH 00/19] Numa aware LRU lists and shrinkers Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 01/19] dcache: convert dentry_stat.nr_unused to per-cpu counters Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 02/19] dentry: move to per-sb LRU locks Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 03/19] dcache: remove dentries from LRU before putting on dispose list Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 04/19] mm: new shrinker API Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 05/19] shrinker: convert superblock shrinkers to new API Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-20 11:06 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-20 11:06 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-20 11:06 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-21 1:46 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-21 1:46 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-21 10:17 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-21 10:17 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-21 10:17 ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 06/19] list: add a new LRU list type Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-28 16:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-28 16:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-28 16:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 07/19] inode: convert inode lru list to generic lru list code Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 08/19] dcache: convert to use new lru list infrastructure Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 09/19] list_lru: per-node " Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-20 11:21 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-20 11:21 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-20 11:21 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-21 1:54 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-21 1:54 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-16 19:21 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-16 19:21 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-16 19:21 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-16 22:55 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-16 22:55 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-17 0:35 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-17 0:35 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-17 0:35 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-17 4:22 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-17 4:22 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-17 18:21 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-17 18:21 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-17 18:21 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-18 0:10 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-18 0:10 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-18 0:14 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-18 0:14 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-18 0:14 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-18 8:11 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-18 8:11 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-18 19:10 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-18 19:10 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-18 19:10 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-19 0:10 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-19 0:10 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-19 0:13 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-19 0:13 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-19 0:13 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-18 0:51 ` Glauber Costa [this message]
2013-01-18 0:51 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-18 0:51 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-18 8:08 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-18 8:08 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-18 19:01 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-18 19:01 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-18 19:01 ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 10/19] shrinker: add node awareness Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 11/19] fs: convert inode and dentry shrinking to be node aware Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 12/19] xfs: convert buftarg LRU to generic code Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 13/19] xfs: Node aware direct inode reclaim Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 14/19] xfs: use generic AG walk for background " Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 15/19] xfs: convert dquot cache lru to list_lru Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-28 16:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-28 16:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-28 16:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 16/19] fs: convert fs shrinkers to new scan/count API Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 17/19] drivers: convert shrinkers to new count/scan API Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-28 1:13 ` Chris Wilson
2012-11-28 1:13 ` Chris Wilson
2012-11-28 1:13 ` Chris Wilson
2012-11-28 3:17 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-28 3:17 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-28 3:17 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-28 8:21 ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-28 8:21 ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-28 8:21 ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-28 8:21 ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-28 21:28 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-28 21:28 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-28 21:28 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-29 10:29 ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-29 10:29 ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-29 10:29 ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-29 10:29 ` Glauber Costa
2012-11-29 22:02 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-29 22:02 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-29 22:02 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-07 13:37 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-06-07 13:37 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2013-06-07 13:37 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 18/19] shrinker: convert remaining shrinkers to " Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` [PATCH 19/19] shrinker: Kill old ->shrink API Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-27 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-29 19:02 ` [RFC, PATCH 00/19] Numa aware LRU lists and shrinkers Andi Kleen
2012-11-29 19:02 ` Andi Kleen
2012-11-29 19:02 ` Andi Kleen
2012-11-29 22:09 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-29 22:09 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-29 22:09 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-20 11:45 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-20 11:45 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-20 11:45 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-21 2:50 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-21 2:50 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-21 10:41 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-21 10:41 ` Glauber Costa
2012-12-21 10:41 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-21 16:08 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-21 16:08 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-21 16:08 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-21 23:21 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-21 23:21 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-21 23:21 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-23 14:36 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-23 14:36 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-23 14:36 ` Glauber Costa
2013-01-23 23:46 ` Dave Chinner
2013-01-23 23:46 ` Dave Chinner
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=50F89C77.4010101@parallels.com \
--to=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=suleiman@google.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=yinghan@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.