From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Shan <gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/mm: Fix RECLAIM_DISTANCE
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 18:19:10 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170127124910.GA2668@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170125045822.GA10566@gwshan>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 03:58:22PM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 09:27:44AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:32:28AM +1100, Gavin Shan wrote:
> >> When @node_reclaim_mode ("/proc/sys/vm/zone_reclaim_mode") is enabled,
> >> the nodes in the specified distance (< RECLAIM_DISTANCE) to the preferred
> >> one will be checked for page direct reclaim in the fast path, as below
> >> function call chain indicates. Currently, RECLAIM_DISTANCE is set to 10,
> >> equal to LOCAL_DISTANCE. It means no nodes, including the preferred one,
> >> don't match the conditions. So no nodes are checked for direct reclaim
> >> in the fast path.
> >>
> >> __alloc_pages_nodemask
> >> get_page_from_freelist
> >> zone_allows_reclaim
> >>
> >> This fixes it by setting RECLAIM_DISTANCE to 30. With it, the preferred
> >> node and its directly adjacent nodes will be checked for page direct
> >> reclaim. The comments explaining RECLAIM_DISTANCE is out of date. This
> >> updates and makes it correct.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >
> >I spoke about this at length with Anton and the larger kernel team.
> >We need performance data before we can commit to the change. Do we
> >benchmarks to show that the change does not introduce regression
> >w.r.t runtime cost?
> >
>
> Thanks for review. I just found the problem when studying the code
> last year. It sounds reasonable not to rely on the slow path for page
> reclaim if the fast path can reclaim enough pages. From this point,
> I believe the performance should be improved. In the meanwhile, the
> page cache/buffer could be released, as part of the output of page
> reclaim. It's going to affect fs's performance for sure. So do you
> have recommended test examples to measure the improved performance
> because of this?
>
Anton suggested that NUMA distances in powerpc mattered and hurted
performance without this setting. We need to validate to see if this
is still true. A simple way to start would be benchmarking
Balbir Singh.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-27 12:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-23 23:32 [PATCH] powerpc/mm: Fix RECLAIM_DISTANCE Gavin Shan
2017-01-25 3:57 ` Balbir Singh
2017-01-25 4:58 ` Gavin Shan
2017-01-27 12:49 ` Balbir Singh [this message]
2017-01-30 1:02 ` Anton Blanchard
2017-01-30 4:38 ` Gavin Shan
2017-01-30 21:11 ` Michael Ellerman
2017-01-31 5:01 ` Gavin Shan
2017-01-31 5:40 ` Gavin Shan
2017-02-07 23:40 ` Gavin Shan
2017-01-31 4:33 ` Gavin Shan
2017-01-31 4:58 ` Anton Blanchard
2017-01-31 5:30 ` Gavin Shan
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=20170127124910.GA2668@localhost.localdomain \
--to=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=gwshan@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).