From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"ak@linux.intel.com" <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
"lee.schermerhorn@hp.com" <lee.schermerhorn@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v2]numa: add a sysctl to control interleave allocation granularity from each node
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:37:54 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111207013754.GA23364@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1112061248500.28251@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 04:52:56AM +0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Shaohua Li wrote:
>
> > If mem plicy is interleaves, we will allocated pages from nodes in a round
> > robin way. This surely can do interleave fairly, but not optimal.
> >
> > Say the pages will be used for I/O later. Interleave allocation for two pages
> > are allocated from two nodes, so the pages are not physically continuous. Later
> > each page needs one segment for DMA scatter-gathering. But maxium hardware
> > segment number is limited. The non-continuous pages will use up maxium
> > hardware segment number soon and we can't merge I/O to bigger DMA. Allocating
> > pages from one node hasn't such issue. The memory allocator pcp list makes
> > we can get physically continuous pages in several alloc quite likely.
> >
> > Below patch adds a sysctl to control the allocation granularity from each node.
> >
> > Run a sequential read workload which accesses disk sdc - sdf. The test uses
> > a LSI SAS1068E card. iostat -x -m 5 shows:
> >
> > without numactl --interleave=0,1:
> > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await svctm %util
> > sdc 13.40 0.00 259.00 0.00 67.05 0.00 530.19 5.00 19.38 3.86 100.00
> > sdd 13.00 0.00 249.00 0.00 64.95 0.00 534.21 5.05 19.73 4.02 100.00
> > sde 13.60 0.00 258.60 0.00 67.40 0.00 533.78 4.96 18.98 3.87 100.00
> > sdf 13.00 0.00 261.60 0.00 67.50 0.00 528.44 5.24 19.77 3.82 100.00
> >
> > with numactl --interleave=0,1:
> > sdc 6.80 0.00 419.60 0.00 64.90 0.00 316.77 14.17 34.04 2.38 100.00
> > sdd 6.00 0.00 423.40 0.00 65.58 0.00 317.23 17.33 41.14 2.36 100.00
> > sde 5.60 0.00 419.60 0.00 64.90 0.00 316.77 17.29 40.94 2.38 100.00
> > sdf 5.20 0.00 417.80 0.00 64.17 0.00 314.55 16.69 39.42 2.39 100.00
> >
> > with numactl --interleave=0,1 and below patch, setting numa_interleave_granularity to 8
> > (setting it to 2 gives similar result, I only recorded the data with 8):
> > sdc 13.00 0.00 261.20 0.00 68.20 0.00 534.74 5.05 19.19 3.83 100.00
> > sde 13.40 0.00 259.00 0.00 67.85 0.00 536.52 4.85 18.80 3.86 100.00
> > sdf 13.00 0.00 260.60 0.00 68.20 0.00 535.97 4.85 18.61 3.84 100.00
> > sdd 13.20 0.00 251.60 0.00 66.00 0.00 537.23 4.95 19.45 3.97 100.00
> >
> > The avgrq-sz is increased a lot. performance boost a little too.
> >
>
> I really like being able to control the interleave granularity, but I
> think it can be done even better: instead of having a strict count on the
> number of allocations (slab or otherwise) to allocate on a single node
> before moving on to another, which could result in large asymmetries
> between nodes which is the antagonist of any interleaved mempolicy, have
> you considered basing the granularity on size instead? interleave_nodes()
> would then only move onto the next node when a size threshold has been
> reached.
based on the allocation size, right? I did consider it. It would be easy to
implement this. Note even without my patch we have the issue if allocation
from one node is big order and small order from other node. And nobody
complains the imbalance. This makes me think maybe people didn't care
about the imbalance too much.
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-07 1:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-05 3:30 [patch v2]numa: add a sysctl to control interleave allocation granularity from each node Shaohua Li
2011-12-06 20:52 ` David Rientjes
2011-12-07 1:37 ` Shaohua Li [this message]
2011-12-07 1:42 ` David Rientjes
2011-12-07 5:03 ` Shaohua Li
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=20111207013754.GA23364@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com \
--to=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=lee.schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rientjes@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 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).