From: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Bob Liu <lliubbo@gmail.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Convert khugepaged to a task_work function
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:58:39 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141029215839.GO2979@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lho0pf4l.fsf@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 05:12:26AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com> writes:
>
> > Last week, while discussing possible fixes for some unexpected/unwanted behavior
> > from khugepaged (see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/8/515) several people
> > mentioned possibly changing changing khugepaged to work as a task_work function
> > instead of a kernel thread. This will give us finer grained control over the
> > page collapse scans, eliminate some unnecessary scans since tasks that are
> > relatively inactive will not be scanned often, and eliminate the unwanted
> > behavior described in the email thread I mentioned.
>
> With your change, what would happen in a single threaded case?
>
> Previously one core would scan and another would run the workload.
> With your change both scanning and running would be on the same
> core.
>
> Would seem like a step backwards to me.
I suppose from the single-threaded point of view, it could be. Maybe we
could look at this a bit differently. What if we allow processes to
choose their collapse mechanism on fork? That way, the system could
default to using the standard khugepaged mechanism, but we could request
that processes handle collapses themselves if we want. Overall, I don't
think that would add too much overhead to what I've already proposed
here, and it gives us more flexibility.
Thoughts?
- Alex
--
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:[~2014-10-29 21:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-23 2:49 [PATCH 0/4] Convert khugepaged to a task_work function Alex Thorlton
2014-10-23 2:49 ` [PATCH 1/4] Disable khugepaged thread Alex Thorlton
2014-10-23 2:49 ` [PATCH] Add pgcollapse controls to task_struct Alex Thorlton
2014-10-23 15:29 ` Alex Thorlton
2014-10-23 2:49 ` [PATCH 3/4] Convert khugepaged scan functions to work with task_work Alex Thorlton
2014-10-23 2:49 ` [PATCH 4/4] Add /proc files to expose per-mm pgcollapse stats Alex Thorlton
2014-10-23 3:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] Add pgcollapse stat counter to task_struct Alex Thorlton
2014-10-23 3:06 ` [PATCH 2/2] Add /proc files to expose per-mm pgcollapse stats Alex Thorlton
2014-10-23 17:55 ` [PATCH 0/4] Convert khugepaged to a task_work function Rik van Riel
2014-10-23 18:05 ` Alex Thorlton
2014-10-23 18:52 ` Alex Thorlton
2014-10-28 12:12 ` Andi Kleen
2014-10-28 12:58 ` Rik van Riel
2014-10-28 15:39 ` Rik van Riel
2014-10-31 20:27 ` Vlastimil Babka
2014-11-17 21:34 ` Alex Thorlton
2014-11-10 11:03 ` Mel Gorman
2014-11-17 21:16 ` Alex Thorlton
2014-10-29 21:58 ` Alex Thorlton [this message]
2014-10-30 0:23 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2014-10-30 8:35 ` Andi Kleen
2014-10-30 18:25 ` Alex Thorlton
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=20141029215839.GO2979@sgi.com \
--to=athorlton@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lliubbo@gmail.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.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).