From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1758868AbYHATNs@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758868AbYHATNs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:13:48 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754377AbYHATNk
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:13:40 -0400
Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:52681 "EHLO
	relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753626AbYHATNk (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:13:40 -0400
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:13:36 -0500
From: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>,
       Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@us.ibm.com>,
       Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] Scale pidhash_shift/pidhash_size up based on
	num_possible_cpus().
Message-ID: <20080801191336.GK10501@sgi.com>
References: <20080731170022.GE9663@sgi.com> <m1prot297c.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org> <20080731193204.GG9663@sgi.com> <m1iqul25rk.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org> <20080731200835.GK9663@sgi.com> <m1bq0d1zhz.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org> <20080801120455.GP9663@sgi.com> <m1proszj3r.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m1proszj3r.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 11:27:20AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 03:04:56PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Like so???
> >> >
> >> > I have not tested this yet.
> >> 
> >> Looks reasonable to me.
> >> 
> >> In what circumstances was the lookup in the pid hash table with
> >> long changes causing a performance slowdown?.  We don't perform
> >> a lot of lookups.
> >
> > It was initially detected while profiling 'ps' on a 2048p machine that
> > had 13 kernel threads per cpu.  We added a couple more device drivers
> > which added additional threads.  We then started a pthread-on-process
> > MPI job which had 2048 ranks each with 4 threads (test-case from
> > customer job).  There were misc other processes out there which brought
> > our task count up to approx 63k.  Larger page size helped the problem
> > (went from 16k to 64k).
> 
> Large page size?  Do you mean larger hash size?
> 
> What were you measuring that showed improvement with the large hash size?

Oops, confusing details.  That was a different problem we had been
tracking.

Sorry for the confusion,
Robin