Re: [PATCH 13/40] autonuma: CPU follow memory algorithm

[Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>]

Hi Nai,

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:11:35PM +0800, Nai Xia wrote:
> If one process do very intensive visit of a small set of pages in this
> node, but occasional visit of a large set of pages in another node.
> Will this algorithm do a very bad judgment? I guess the answer would
> be: it's possible and this judgment depends on the racing pattern
> between the process and your knuma_scand.

Depending if the knuma_scand/scan_pass_sleep_millisecs is more or less
occasional than the visit of a large set of pages it may behave
differently correct.

Note that every algorithm will have a limit on how smart it can be.

Just to make a random example: if you lookup some pagecache a million
times and some other pagecache a dozen times, their "aging"
information in the pagecache will end up identical. Yet we know one
set of pages is clearly higher priority than the other. We've only so
many levels of lrus and so many referenced/active bitflags per
page. Once you get at the top, then all is equal.

Does this mean the "active" list working set detection is useless just
because we can't differentiate a million of lookups on a few pages, vs
a dozen of lookups on lots of pages?

Last but not the least, in the very example you mention it's not even
clear that the process should be scheduled in the CPU where there is
the small set of pages accessed frequently, or the CPU where there's
the large set of pages accessed occasionally. If the small sets of
pages fits in the 8MBytes of the L2 cache, then it's better to put the
process in the other CPU where the large set of pages can't fit in the
L2 cache. Lots of hardware details should be evaluated, to really know
what's the right thing in such case even if it was you having to
decide.

But the real reason why the above isn't an issue and why we don't need
to solve that problem perfectly: there's not just a CPU follow memory
algorithm in AutoNUMA. There's also the memory follow CPU
algorithm. AutoNUMA will do its best to change the layout of your
example to one that has only one clear solution: the occasional lookup
of the large set of pages, will make those eventually go in the node
together with the small set of pages (or the other way around), and
this is how it's solved.

In any case, whatever wrong decision it will take, it will at least be
a better decision than the numa/sched where there's absolutely zero
information about what pages the process is accessing. And best of all
with AutoNUMA you also know which pages the _thread_ is accessing so
it will also be able to take optimal decisions if there are more
threads than CPUs in a node (as long as not all thread accesses are
shared).

Hope this explains things better.
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>