Re: [Lsf] [LSF][MM] page allocation & direct reclaim latency

[Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>]

Hi Rik, Hugh and everyone,

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:35:09AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 03/29/2011 12:36 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Since LSF is less than a week away, the programme committee put together
> > a just in time preliminary agenda for LSF.  As you can see there is
> > still plenty of empty space, which you can make suggestions
> 
> There have been a few patches upstream by people for who
> page allocation latency is a concern.
> 
> It may be worthwhile to have a short discussion on what
> we can do to keep page allocation (and direct reclaim?)
> latencies down to a minimum, reducing the slowdown that
> direct reclaim introduces on some workloads.

I don't see the patches you refer to, but checking schedule we've a
slot with Mel&Minchan about "Reclaim, compaction and LRU
ordering". Compaction only applies to high order allocations and it
changes nothing to PAGE_SIZE allocations, but it surely has lower
latency than the older lumpy reclaim logic so overall it should be a
net improvement compared to what we had before.

Should the latency issues be discussed in that track?

The MM schedule has still a free slot 14-14:30 on Monday, I wonder if
there's interest on a "NUMA automatic migration and scheduling
awareness" topic or if it's still too vapourware for a real topic and
we should keep it for offtrack discussions, and maybe we should
reserve it for something more tangible with patches already floating
around. Comments welcome.

Thanks,
Andrea

--
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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>