From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 57F356B0047 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 23:02:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: zone state overhead From: Shaohua Li In-Reply-To: References: <20100928050801.GA29021@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> <20100928133059.GL8187@csn.ul.ie> <20100928135148.GM8187@csn.ul.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:02:40 +0800 Message-ID: <1285729360.27440.18.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Mel Gorman , "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: On Tue, 2010-09-28 at 22:08 +0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 08:40:15AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > > Which of these is better or is there an alternative suggestion on how > > > > this livelock can be avoided? > > > > > > We need to run some experiments to see what is worse. Lets start by > > > cutting both the stats threshold and the drift thing in half? > > > > > > > Ok, I have no problem with that although again, I'm really not in the position > > to roll patches for it right now. I don't want to get side-tracked. > > Ok the stat threshold determines the per_cpu_drift_mark. > > So changing the threshold should do the trick. Try this: doesn't work here, perf still shows the same overhead. in the system: Node 3, zone Normal pages free 2055926 min 1441 low 1801 high 2161 scanned 0 spanned 2097152 present 2068480 vm stats threshold: 98 (low-min)/NR_CPU = (1801-1441)/64 = 5 so when the threshold is 5, there is no per_cpu_drift_mark. -- 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: email@kvack.org