From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751397AbbCTAX3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:23:29 -0400 Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.131]:34394 "EHLO ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751032AbbCTAX1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:23:27 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2DECAAUZwtV/wYQLHlcgwaBLLMWBpkGBAICgT9NAQEBAQEBfYQQAQUnExwjEAgDGAklDwUlAyETiC7ODwEBAQcCIBiFcoUNhHEHhC0BBI4+i3qUKSKEAioxgkMBAQE Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:23:11 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mel Gorman , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Aneesh Kumar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux-MM , xfs@oss.sgi.com, ppc-dev Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: numa: Slow PTE scan rate if migration failures occur Message-ID: <20150320002311.GG28621@dastard> References: <20150317070655.GB10105@dastard> <20150317205104.GA28621@dastard> <20150317220840.GC28621@dastard> <20150319224143.GI10105@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:05:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Can you try Mel's change to make it use > > if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE)) > > instead of the pte details? Again, on otherwise plain 3.19, just so > that we have a baseline. I'd be *so* much happer with checking the vma > details over per-pte details, especially ones that change over the > lifetime of the pte entry, and the NUMA code explicitly mucks with. $ sudo perf_3.18 stat -a -r 6 -e migrate:mm_migrate_pages sleep 10 Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (6 runs): 266,750 migrate:mm_migrate_pages ( +- 7.43% ) 10.002032292 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.00% ) Bit more variance there than the pte checking, but runtime difference is in the noise - 5m4s vs 4m54s - and profiles are identical to the pte checking version. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD1B7F37 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:23:32 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4647DAC002 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id SevEIQZuIVbnFTyL for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:23:11 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: numa: Slow PTE scan rate if migration failures occur Message-ID: <20150320002311.GG28621@dastard> References: <20150317070655.GB10105@dastard> <20150317205104.GA28621@dastard> <20150317220840.GC28621@dastard> <20150319224143.GI10105@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Linux-MM , Aneesh Kumar , Andrew Morton , ppc-dev , Ingo Molnar , Mel Gorman On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:05:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Can you try Mel's change to make it use > > if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE)) > > instead of the pte details? Again, on otherwise plain 3.19, just so > that we have a baseline. I'd be *so* much happer with checking the vma > details over per-pte details, especially ones that change over the > lifetime of the pte entry, and the NUMA code explicitly mucks with. $ sudo perf_3.18 stat -a -r 6 -e migrate:mm_migrate_pages sleep 10 Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (6 runs): 266,750 migrate:mm_migrate_pages ( +- 7.43% ) 10.002032292 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.00% ) Bit more variance there than the pte checking, but runtime difference is in the noise - 5m4s vs 4m54s - and profiles are identical to the pte checking version. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com (mail-pa0-f54.google.com [209.85.220.54]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFAA6B0038 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:23:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: by padcy3 with SMTP id cy3so90798968pad.3 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:23:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net. [150.101.137.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id am9si6169798pad.8.2015.03.19.17.23.27 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:23:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:23:11 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: numa: Slow PTE scan rate if migration failures occur Message-ID: <20150320002311.GG28621@dastard> References: <20150317070655.GB10105@dastard> <20150317205104.GA28621@dastard> <20150317220840.GC28621@dastard> <20150319224143.GI10105@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mel Gorman , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Aneesh Kumar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux-MM , xfs@oss.sgi.com, ppc-dev On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:05:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Can you try Mel's change to make it use > > if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE)) > > instead of the pte details? Again, on otherwise plain 3.19, just so > that we have a baseline. I'd be *so* much happer with checking the vma > details over per-pte details, especially ones that change over the > lifetime of the pte entry, and the NUMA code explicitly mucks with. $ sudo perf_3.18 stat -a -r 6 -e migrate:mm_migrate_pages sleep 10 Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (6 runs): 266,750 migrate:mm_migrate_pages ( +- 7.43% ) 10.002032292 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.00% ) Bit more variance there than the pte checking, but runtime difference is in the noise - 5m4s vs 4m54s - and profiles are identical to the pte checking version. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2688D1A00B0 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:23:26 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:23:11 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: numa: Slow PTE scan rate if migration failures occur Message-ID: <20150320002311.GG28621@dastard> References: <20150317070655.GB10105@dastard> <20150317205104.GA28621@dastard> <20150317220840.GC28621@dastard> <20150319224143.GI10105@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Linux-MM , Aneesh Kumar , Andrew Morton , ppc-dev , Ingo Molnar , Mel Gorman List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:05:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Can you try Mel's change to make it use > > if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE)) > > instead of the pte details? Again, on otherwise plain 3.19, just so > that we have a baseline. I'd be *so* much happer with checking the vma > details over per-pte details, especially ones that change over the > lifetime of the pte entry, and the NUMA code explicitly mucks with. $ sudo perf_3.18 stat -a -r 6 -e migrate:mm_migrate_pages sleep 10 Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (6 runs): 266,750 migrate:mm_migrate_pages ( +- 7.43% ) 10.002032292 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.00% ) Bit more variance there than the pte checking, but runtime difference is in the noise - 5m4s vs 4m54s - and profiles are identical to the pte checking version. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com