From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pb0-f43.google.com (mail-pb0-f43.google.com [209.85.160.43]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 540BF6B0032 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 13:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id md4so7389874pbc.30 for ; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 10:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5252F2FA.1020201@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 13:44:26 -0400 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/63] sched: Set the scan rate proportional to the memory usage of the task being scanned References: <1381141781-10992-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <1381141781-10992-18-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <1381141781-10992-18-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Mel Gorman Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Srikar Dronamraju , Ingo Molnar , Andrea Arcangeli , Johannes Weiner , Linux-MM , LKML On 10/07/2013 06:28 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > The NUMA PTE scan rate is controlled with a combination of the > numa_balancing_scan_period_min, numa_balancing_scan_period_max and > numa_balancing_scan_size. This scan rate is independent of the size > of the task and as an aside it is further complicated by the fact that > numa_balancing_scan_size controls how many pages are marked pte_numa and > not how much virtual memory is scanned. > > In combination, it is almost impossible to meaningfully tune the min and > max scan periods and reasoning about performance is complex when the time > to complete a full scan is is partially a function of the tasks memory > size. This patch alters the semantic of the min and max tunables to be > about tuning the length time it takes to complete a scan of a tasks occupied > virtual address space. Conceptually this is a lot easier to understand. There > is a "sanity" check to ensure the scan rate is never extremely fast based on > the amount of virtual memory that should be scanned in a second. The default > of 2.5G seems arbitrary but it is to have the maximum scan rate after the > patch roughly match the maximum scan rate before the patch was applied. > > On a similar note, numa_scan_period is in milliseconds and not > jiffies. Properly placed pages slow the scanning rate but adding 10 jiffies > to numa_scan_period means that the rate scanning slows depends on HZ which > is confusing. Get rid of the jiffies_to_msec conversion and treat it as ms. > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel -- All rights reversed -- 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