From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH 0/7] Memory Compaction v1
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:11:12 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100121101112.GH5154@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100121115636.73BA.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:12:11PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Hi Mel,
>
> Sorry, I haven't read this patch at all.
>
> > The time differences are marginal but bear in mind that this is an ideal
> > case of mostly unmapped buffer pages. On nice set of results is between
> > allocations 13-18 where no pages were reclaimed, some compaction occured
> > and 300 huge pages were allocated in 0.16 seconds. Furthermore, compaction
> > allocated a high higher percentage of memory (91% of RAM as huge pages).
> >
> > The downside appears to be that the compaction kernel reclaimed even more
> > pages than the vanilla kernel. However, take the cut-off point of 880 pages
> > that both kernels succeeded. The vanilla kernel had reclaimed 105132 pages
> > at that point. The kernel with compaction had reclaimed 59071, less than
> > half of what the vanilla kernel reclaimed. i.e. the bulk of pages reclaimed
> > with the compaction kernel were to get from 87% of memory allocated to 91%
> > as huge pages.
> >
> > These results would appear to be an encouraging enough start.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I think "Total pages reclaimed" increasing is not good thing ;)
First, I made a mistake in the patch. With the bug fixed, they're
reduced. See the post later in the thread
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/6/215
> Honestly, I haven't understand why your patch increase reclaimed and
> the exactly meaning of the your tool's rclm field.
>
> Can you share your mesurement script? May I run the same test?
>
Unfortunately at the moment it's part of a mini-testgrid setup I run out
of the house. It doesn't lend itself to being stand-alone. I'll break it
out as part of the next release.
> I like this patch, but I don't like increasing reclaim. I'd like to know
> this patch require any vmscan change and/or its change mitigate the issue.
>
With the bug repaired, reclaims go from 105132 to 45935 with more huge
pages allocated so right now, no special action is required.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-21 10:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-06 16:26 [RFC-PATCH 0/7] Memory Compaction v1 Mel Gorman
2010-01-06 16:26 ` [PATCH 1/7] Allow CONFIG_MIGRATION to be set without CONFIG_NUMA Mel Gorman
2010-01-07 21:46 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-07 22:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-01-19 13:00 ` Mel Gorman
2010-01-06 16:26 ` [PATCH 2/7] Export unusable free space index via /proc/pagetypeinfo Mel Gorman
2010-01-06 17:10 ` Adam Litke
2010-01-06 17:29 ` Mel Gorman
2010-01-06 23:21 ` Tim Pepper
2010-01-28 22:27 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-05 10:23 ` Mel Gorman
2010-02-05 21:40 ` David Rientjes
2010-02-08 12:10 ` Mel Gorman
2010-01-06 16:26 ` [PATCH 3/7] Export fragmentation " Mel Gorman
2010-01-06 16:26 ` [PATCH 4/7] Memory compaction core Mel Gorman
2010-01-06 17:50 ` Mel Gorman
2010-01-06 18:22 ` Mel Gorman
2010-01-06 21:37 ` Andi Kleen
2010-01-06 22:07 ` Mel Gorman
2010-01-06 16:26 ` [PATCH 5/7] Add /proc trigger for memory compaction Mel Gorman
2010-01-07 22:00 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-13 23:23 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-20 9:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-01-20 9:48 ` Mel Gorman
2010-01-20 18:12 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-01-20 20:53 ` Mel Gorman
2010-01-20 20:48 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-21 14:09 ` Mel Gorman
2010-01-21 23:34 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-06 16:26 ` [PATCH 6/7] Direct compact when a high-order allocation fails Mel Gorman
2010-01-06 16:26 ` [PATCH 7/7] Do not compact within a preferred zone after a compaction failure Mel Gorman
2010-01-13 23:28 ` David Rientjes
2010-01-20 9:51 ` Mel Gorman
2010-01-21 3:12 ` [RFC-PATCH 0/7] Memory Compaction v1 KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-01-21 10:11 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2010-01-22 0:16 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
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=20100121101112.GH5154@csn.ul.ie \
--to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=agl@us.ibm.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).