From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
David Cohen <david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Damien Ramonda <damien.ramonda@intel.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Linus <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V5] mm readahead: Fix readahead fail for no local memory and limit readahead pages
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:51:42 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52F88C16.70204@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402071239301.4212@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
On 02/08/2014 02:11 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>> 3) Change the "readahead into remote memory" part of the documentation
>> which is misleading.
>>
>> ( I feel no need to add numa_mem_id() since we would specifically limit
>> the readahead with MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD in memoryless cpu cases).
>>
>
> I don't understand what you're saying, numa_mem_id() is local memory to
> current's cpu. When a node consists only of cpus and not memory it is not
> true that all memory is then considered remote, you won't find that in any
> specification that defines memory affinity including the ACPI spec. I can
> trivially define all cpus on my system to be on memoryless nodes and
> having that affect readahead behavior when, in fact, there is affinity
> would be ridiculous.
>
As you rightly pointed , I 'll drop remote memory term and use
something like :
"* Ensure readahead success on a memoryless node cpu. But we limit
* the readahead to 4k pages to avoid trashing page cache." ..
Regarding ACCESS_ONCE, since we will have to add
inside the function and still there is nothing that could prevent us
getting run on different cpu with a different node (as Andrew ponted), I
have not included in current patch that I am posting.
Moreover this case is hopefully not fatal since it is just a hint for
readahead we can do.
So there are many possible implementation:
(1) use numa_mem_id(), apply freepage limit and use 4k page limit for
all case
(Jan had reservation about this case)
(2)for normal case: use free memory calculation and do not apply 4k
limit (no change).
for memoryless cpu case: use numa_mem_id for more accurate
calculation of limit and also apply 4k limit.
(3) for normal case: use free memory calculation and do not apply 4k
limit (no change).
for memoryless case: apply 4k page limit
(4) use numa_mem_id() and apply only free page limit..
So, I ll be resending the patch with changelog and comment changes
based on your and Andrew's feedback (type (3) implementation).
--
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:[~2014-02-10 8:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-22 10:53 [RFC PATCH V5] mm readahead: Fix readahead fail for no local memory and limit readahead pages Raghavendra K T
2014-02-03 8:30 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-02-06 22:51 ` Andrew Morton
2014-02-06 22:58 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-06 23:22 ` Andrew Morton
2014-02-06 23:48 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-06 23:58 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-07 10:42 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-02-07 20:41 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-10 8:21 ` Raghavendra K T [this message]
2014-02-10 10:05 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-10 12:25 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-02-10 21:35 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-13 7:07 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-02-13 8:05 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-13 10:04 ` Raghavendra K T
2014-02-13 22:41 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-14 0:14 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-14 0:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-02-14 0:45 ` Andrew Morton
2014-02-14 4:32 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-14 10:54 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-17 19:28 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-17 23:14 ` David Rientjes
2014-02-18 1:31 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-17 22:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-02-14 7:43 ` Jan Kara
2014-02-17 22:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-02-14 5:47 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-13 21:06 ` Andrew Morton
2014-02-13 21:42 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2014-02-10 8:29 ` [RFC PATCH V5 RESEND] " Raghavendra K T
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=52F88C16.70204@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=damien.ramonda@intel.com \
--cc=david.a.cohen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).