From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aaron.lu@intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, mike.kravetz@oracle.com, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, steven.sistare@oracle.com, tim.c.chen@intel.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/7] ktask: add documentation Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 13:43:33 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20171208124333.GV20234@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <d8323ee9-eb99-7f55-50c6-c71f4986cf06@oracle.com> On Wed 06-12-17 15:32:48, Daniel Jordan wrote: > On 12/06/2017 09:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > There is also no mention about other > > characteristics (e.g. power management), resource isloataion etc. So > let me ask again. How do you control that the parallelized operation > > doesn't run outside of the limit imposed to the calling context? > > The current code doesn't do this, and the answer is the same for the rest of > your questions. I really believe this should be addressed before this can be considered for merging. While what you have might be sufficient for early boot initialization stuff I am not sure the amount of code is really justified by that usecase alone. Any runtime enabled parallelized work really have to care about the rest of the system. The last thing you really want to see is to make a highly utilized system overloaded just because of some optimization. And I do not see how can you achive that with a limit on the number of paralelization threads. > For resource isolation, I'll experiment with moving ktask threads into and > out of the cgroup of the calling thread. > > Do any resources not covered by cgroup come to mind? I'm trying to think if > I've left anything out. This is mostly about cpu so dealing with the cpu cgroup controller should do the work. [...] > Anyway, I think scalability bottlenecks should be weighed with the rest of > this. It seems wrong that the kernel should always assume that one thread > is enough to free all of a process's memory or evict all the pages of a file > system no matter how much work there is to do. Well, this will be always a double edge sword. Sure if you have spare cycles (whatever that means) than using them is really nice. But the last thing you really want is to turn an optimization into an utilization nightmare where few processes dominant the whole machine even though they could be easily contained normally inside a single execution context. Your work targets larger machines and I understand that you are mainly focused on a single large workload running on that machine but there are many others running with many smaller workloads which would like to be independent. Not everything is a large DB running on a large HW. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aaron.lu@intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, mike.kravetz@oracle.com, pasha.tatashin@oracle.com, steven.sistare@oracle.com, tim.c.chen@intel.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/7] ktask: add documentation Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 13:43:33 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20171208124333.GV20234@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <d8323ee9-eb99-7f55-50c6-c71f4986cf06@oracle.com> On Wed 06-12-17 15:32:48, Daniel Jordan wrote: > On 12/06/2017 09:35 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > There is also no mention about other > > characteristics (e.g. power management), resource isloataion etc. So > let me ask again. How do you control that the parallelized operation > > doesn't run outside of the limit imposed to the calling context? > > The current code doesn't do this, and the answer is the same for the rest of > your questions. I really believe this should be addressed before this can be considered for merging. While what you have might be sufficient for early boot initialization stuff I am not sure the amount of code is really justified by that usecase alone. Any runtime enabled parallelized work really have to care about the rest of the system. The last thing you really want to see is to make a highly utilized system overloaded just because of some optimization. And I do not see how can you achive that with a limit on the number of paralelization threads. > For resource isolation, I'll experiment with moving ktask threads into and > out of the cgroup of the calling thread. > > Do any resources not covered by cgroup come to mind? I'm trying to think if > I've left anything out. This is mostly about cpu so dealing with the cpu cgroup controller should do the work. [...] > Anyway, I think scalability bottlenecks should be weighed with the rest of > this. It seems wrong that the kernel should always assume that one thread > is enough to free all of a process's memory or evict all the pages of a file > system no matter how much work there is to do. Well, this will be always a double edge sword. Sure if you have spare cycles (whatever that means) than using them is really nice. But the last thing you really want is to turn an optimization into an utilization nightmare where few processes dominant the whole machine even though they could be easily contained normally inside a single execution context. Your work targets larger machines and I understand that you are mainly focused on a single large workload running on that machine but there are many others running with many smaller workloads which would like to be independent. Not everything is a large DB running on a large HW. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-08 12:43 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-12-05 19:52 [RFC PATCH v3 0/7] ktask: multithread CPU-intensive kernel work Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/7] ktask: add documentation Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 20:59 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 20:59 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-06 14:35 ` Michal Hocko 2017-12-06 14:35 ` Michal Hocko 2017-12-06 20:32 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-06 20:32 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-08 12:43 ` Michal Hocko [this message] 2017-12-08 12:43 ` Michal Hocko 2017-12-08 13:46 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-08 13:46 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/7] ktask: multithread CPU-intensive kernel work Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 22:21 ` Andrew Morton 2017-12-05 22:21 ` Andrew Morton 2017-12-06 14:21 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-06 14:21 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/7] ktask: add /proc/sys/debug/ktask_max_threads Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` [RFC PATCH v3 4/7] mm: enlarge type of offset argument in mem_map_offset and mem_map_next Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` [RFC PATCH v3 5/7] mm: parallelize clear_gigantic_page Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` [RFC PATCH v3 6/7] hugetlbfs: parallelize hugetlbfs_fallocate with ktask Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` [RFC PATCH v3 7/7] mm: parallelize deferred struct page initialization within each node Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 19:52 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-05 22:23 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/7] ktask: multithread CPU-intensive kernel work Andrew Morton 2017-12-05 22:23 ` Andrew Morton 2017-12-06 14:21 ` Daniel Jordan 2017-12-06 14:21 ` Daniel Jordan
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=20171208124333.GV20234@dhcp22.suse.cz \ --to=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com \ --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \ --cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \ --cc=pasha.tatashin@oracle.com \ --cc=steven.sistare@oracle.com \ --cc=tim.c.chen@intel.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.