From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDE2C76194 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:20:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8E022BEF for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:20:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726279AbfGZJUc (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 05:20:32 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:44002 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725815AbfGZJUb (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 05:20:31 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x6Q9HWpo097299 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 05:20:30 -0400 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2tywrh315x-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 05:20:29 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:20:28 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.196) by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.134) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:20:24 +0100 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x6Q9KNF652559878 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:20:23 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0C3AE051; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:20:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE303AE056; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:20:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:20:21 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 14:50:21 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: "Huang, Ying" Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel , Mel Gorman , jhladky@redhat.com, lvenanci@redhat.com, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] autonuma: Fix scan period updating Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju References: <20190725080124.494-1-ying.huang@intel.com> <20190725173516.GA16399@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87y30l5jdo.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y30l5jdo.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19072609-0016-0000-0000-0000029661A1 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19072609-0017-0000-0000-000032F46133 Message-Id: <20190726092021.GA5273@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-07-26_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1907260120 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Huang, Ying [2019-07-26 15:45:39]: > Hi, Srikar, > > > > > More Remote + Private page Accesses: > > Most likely the Private accesses are going to be local accesses. > > > > In the unlikely event of the private accesses not being local, we should > > scan faster so that the memory and task consolidates. > > > > More Remote + Shared page Accesses: This means the workload has not > > consolidated and needs to scan faster. So we need to scan faster. > > This sounds reasonable. But > > lr_ratio < NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD > > doesn't indicate More Remote. If Local = Remote, it is also true. If less lr_ratio means more remote. > there are also more Shared, we should slow down the scanning. So, the Why should we slowing down if there are more remote shared accesses? > logic could be > > if (lr_ratio >= NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD) > slow down scanning > else if (sp_ratio >= NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD) { > if (NUMA_PERIOD_SLOTS - lr_ratio >= NUMA_PERIOD_THRESHOLD) > speed up scanning > else > slow down scanning > } else > speed up scanning > > This follows your idea better? > > Best Regards, > Huang, Ying -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju