From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f71.google.com (mail-pg0-f71.google.com [74.125.83.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5406B0388 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pg0-f71.google.com with SMTP id t143so39231090pgb.5 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com. [134.134.136.20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a125si2444286pgc.9.2017.03.15.08.44.00 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 23:44:07 +0800 From: Aaron Lu Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Message-ID: <20170315154406.GF2442@aaronlu.sh.intel.com> References: <1489568404-7817-1-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com> <20170315141813.GB32626@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170315141813.GB32626@dhcp22.suse.cz> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Hansen , Tim Chen , Andrew Morton , Ying Huang On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 03:18:14PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 15-03-17 16:59:59, Aaron Lu wrote: > [...] > > The proposed parallel free did this: if the process has many pages to be > > freed, accumulate them in these struct mmu_gather_batch(es) one after > > another till 256K pages are accumulated. Then take this singly linked > > list starting from tlb->local.next off struct mmu_gather *tlb and free > > them in a worker thread. The main thread can return to continue zap > > other pages(after freeing pages pointed by tlb->local.pages). > > I didn't have a look at the implementation yet but there are two > concerns that raise up from this description. Firstly how are we going > to tune the number of workers. I assume there will be some upper bound > (one of the patch subject mentions debugfs for tuning) and secondly The workers are put in a dedicated workqueue which is introduced in patch 3/5 and the number of workers can be tuned through that workqueue's sysfs interface: max_active. > if we offload the page freeing to the worker then the original context > can consume much more cpu cycles than it was configured via cpu > controller. How are we going to handle that? Or is this considered > acceptable? I'll need to think about and take a look at this subject(not familiar with cpu controller). Thanks. -- 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: email@kvack.org