From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Cc: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@engr.sgi.com>,
akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, steiner@sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] allocate page caches pages in round robin fasion
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 03:31:48 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <411CFB04.603@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <92140000.1092415652@[10.10.2.4]>
Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> --Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> wrote (on Friday, August 13, 2004 09:34:20 -0700):
>
>
>>On Friday, August 13, 2004 9:20 am, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>
>>>>>I really don't think this is a good idea - you're assuming there's
>>>>>really no locality of reference, which I don't think is at all true in
>>>>>most cases.
>>>>
>>>>No, not at all, just that locality of reference matters more for stack
>>>>and anonymous pages than it does for page cache pages. I.e. we don't
>>>>want a node to be filled up with page cache pages causing all other
>>>>memory references from the process to be off node.
>>>
>>>Does that actually happen though? Looking at the current code makes me
>>>think it'll keep some pages free on all nodes at all times, and if kswapd
>>>does it's job, we'll never fall back across nodes. Now ... I think that's
>>>broken, but I think that's what currently happens - that was what we
>>>discussed at KS ... I might be misreading it though, I should test it.
>>
>>Not nearly enough pages for any sizeable app though. Maybe the behavior could
>>be configurable?
>
>
> Well, either we're:
>
> 1. Falling back and putting all our most recent accesses off-node.
>
> or.
>
> 2. Not falling back and only able to use one node's memory for any one
> (single threaded) app.
>
> Either situation is crap, though I'm not sure which turd we picked right
> now ... I'd have to look at the code again ;-) I thought it was 2, but
> I might be wrong.
>
I'm looking at this now. We are doing 1 currently.
There are a couple of issues. The first is that you need to minimise
regressions for when working set size is bigger than the local node.
The second is a fundamental tradeoff where purely FIFO touch patterns
will never be allowed to expand past local node memory for any sane
and simple (ie 2.6 worthy) scanning algorithms that I can think of.
I have a patch going now that just reclaims use-once file cache before
going off node. Seems to help a bit for basic things that just push
pagecache through the system. It definitely reduces remote allocations
by several orders of magnitude for those cases.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-13 17:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-12 23:46 Jesse Barnes
2004-08-13 0:13 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-13 0:25 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-08-13 0:32 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-13 14:50 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-08-13 15:59 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-08-13 16:20 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-08-13 16:34 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-08-13 16:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-08-13 17:31 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2004-08-13 21:16 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-08-13 22:59 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-08-14 1:21 ` Nick Piggin
[not found] <fa.hmrqqf6.ckie1e@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.cg3cafa.ngi9og@ifi.uio.no>
2004-08-13 17:31 ` Ray Bryant
[not found] <fa.hmbmqn2.d4ef9c@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.g1i2d5e.1kgqq80@ifi.uio.no>
2004-08-13 16:33 ` Ray Bryant
[not found] <2sxuC-429-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-08-13 1:14 ` Andi Kleen
2004-08-13 1:26 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-08-13 1:29 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-08-13 16:04 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-08-13 17:31 ` Brent Casavant
2004-08-13 20:16 ` Andi Kleen
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-08-12 23:38 Jesse Barnes
2004-08-13 1:36 ` Dave Hansen
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=411CFB04.603@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=jbarnes@engr.sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=steiner@sgi.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®