linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>

  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).