From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <vbabka@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kas@kernel.org, shakeel.butt@linux.dev, usama.arif@linux.dev,
kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmstat: spread vmstat_update requeue across the stat interval
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2026 06:33:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ac5urCFeEB9oyUiD@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a55afddd-8c6b-4a7a-bfd9-5140013c764c@kernel.org>
> >
> > Cool!
> >
> > I noticed __round_jiffies_relative() exists and the description looks like
> > it's meant for exactly this use case?
>
> On closer look, using round_jiffies_relative() as before your patch
> means it's calling __round_jiffies_relative(j, raw_smp_processor_id())
> so that's already doing this spread internally. You're also relying
> smp_processor_id() so it's not about using a different cpu id.
>
> But your patch has better results, why? I still think it's not doing
> what it intends - I think it makes every cpu have different interval
> length (up to twice the original length), not skew. Is it that, or that
> the 3 jiffies skew per cpu used in round_jiffies_common() is
> insufficient? Or it a bug in its skew implementation?
>
> Ideally once that's clear, the findings could be used to improve
> round_jiffies_common() and hopefully there's nothing here that's vmstat
> specific.
Excellent observation. I believe there are two key differences:
1) The interval duration now varies per CPU. Specifically, vmstat_update()
is scheduled at sysctl_stat_interval*2 for the highest CPU with my
proposed change, rather than a uniform sysctl_stat_interval across
all CPUs. (as you raised in the first email)
2) round_jiffies_relative() applies a 3-jiffies shift per CPU, whereas
vmstat_spread_delay distributes all CPUs across the full second
interval. (My tests were on HZ=1000)
I'll investigate this further to provide more concrete data.
Thanks for the review,
--breno
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-02 13:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-01 13:57 [PATCH] mm/vmstat: spread vmstat_update requeue across the stat interval Breno Leitao
2026-04-01 14:25 ` Johannes Weiner
2026-04-01 14:39 ` Breno Leitao
2026-04-01 14:57 ` Johannes Weiner
2026-04-01 14:47 ` Breno Leitao
2026-04-01 15:01 ` Kiryl Shutsemau
2026-04-01 15:23 ` Usama Arif
2026-04-01 15:43 ` Breno Leitao
2026-04-01 15:50 ` Usama Arif
2026-04-01 15:52 ` Breno Leitao
2026-04-01 17:46 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-04-02 12:40 ` Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)
2026-04-02 13:33 ` Breno Leitao [this message]
2026-04-02 12:43 ` Dmitry Ilvokhin
2026-04-02 7:18 ` Michal Hocko
2026-04-02 12:49 ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-04-02 13:26 ` Breno Leitao
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=ac5urCFeEB9oyUiD@gmail.com \
--to=leitao@debian.org \
--cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@kernel.org \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ljs@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=rppt@kernel.org \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=usama.arif@linux.dev \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
/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