From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753666Ab3LQVXd (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:23:33 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37721 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753382Ab3LQVXb (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:23:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 21:23:27 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Zlatko Calusic Cc: Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , Dave Hansen , Rik van Riel , Linux-MM , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Configurable fair allocation zone policy v2r6 Message-ID: <20131217212327.GL11295@suse.de> References: <1386943807-29601-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <52B068B7.4070304@bitsync.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52B068B7.4070304@bitsync.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 04:07:35PM +0100, Zlatko Calusic wrote: > On 13.12.2013 15:10, Mel Gorman wrote: > >Kicked this another bit today. It's still a bit half-baked but it restores > >the historical performance and leaves the door open at the end for playing > >nice with distributing file pages between nodes. Finishing this series > >depends on whether we are going to make the remote node behaviour of the > >fair zone allocation policy configurable or redefine MPOL_LOCAL. I'm in > >favour of the configurable option because the default can be redefined and > >tested while giving users a "compat" mode if we discover the new default > >behaviour sucks for some workload. > > > > I'll start a 5-day test of this patchset in a few hours, unless you > can send an updated one in the meantime. I intend to test it on a > rather boring 4GB x86_64 machine that before Johannes' work had lots > of trouble balancing zones. Would you recommend to use the default > settings, i.e. don't mess with tunables at this point? > For me at least I would prefer you tested v3 of the series with the default settings of not interleaving file-backed pages on remote nodes by default. Johannes might request testing with that knob enabled if the machine is NUMA although I doubt it is with 4G of RAM. Thanks. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ea0-f169.google.com (mail-ea0-f169.google.com [209.85.215.169]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41EC96B0036 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:23:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ea0-f169.google.com with SMTP id l9so2706380eaj.0 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:23:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f8si6147926eep.99.2013.12.17.13.23.30 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:23:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 21:23:27 +0000 From: Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Configurable fair allocation zone policy v2r6 Message-ID: <20131217212327.GL11295@suse.de> References: <1386943807-29601-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de> <52B068B7.4070304@bitsync.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52B068B7.4070304@bitsync.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Zlatko Calusic Cc: Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , Dave Hansen , Rik van Riel , Linux-MM , LKML On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 04:07:35PM +0100, Zlatko Calusic wrote: > On 13.12.2013 15:10, Mel Gorman wrote: > >Kicked this another bit today. It's still a bit half-baked but it restores > >the historical performance and leaves the door open at the end for playing > >nice with distributing file pages between nodes. Finishing this series > >depends on whether we are going to make the remote node behaviour of the > >fair zone allocation policy configurable or redefine MPOL_LOCAL. I'm in > >favour of the configurable option because the default can be redefined and > >tested while giving users a "compat" mode if we discover the new default > >behaviour sucks for some workload. > > > > I'll start a 5-day test of this patchset in a few hours, unless you > can send an updated one in the meantime. I intend to test it on a > rather boring 4GB x86_64 machine that before Johannes' work had lots > of trouble balancing zones. Would you recommend to use the default > settings, i.e. don't mess with tunables at this point? > For me at least I would prefer you tested v3 of the series with the default settings of not interleaving file-backed pages on remote nodes by default. Johannes might request testing with that knob enabled if the machine is NUMA although I doubt it is with 4G of RAM. Thanks. -- Mel Gorman 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: email@kvack.org