From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756200Ab1JYCFG (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:05:06 -0400 Received: from usindpps03.hds.com ([207.126.252.16]:43179 "EHLO usindpps03.hds.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756178Ab1JYCFE convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:05:04 -0400 From: Satoru Moriya To: David Rientjes CC: Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , Randy Dunlap , Satoru Moriya , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "lwoodman@redhat.com" , Seiji Aguchi , "hughd@google.com" , "hannes@cmpxchg.org" Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:04:09 -0400 Subject: RE: [PATCH -v2 -mm] add extra free kbytes tunable Thread-Topic: [PATCH -v2 -mm] add extra free kbytes tunable Thread-Index: AcyRyegQVuj80kMdQFiB1LhByZWxYgA8Hot6 Message-ID: <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9CB4F747B3@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> References: <20110901105208.3849a8ff@annuminas.surriel.com> <20110901100650.6d884589.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20110901152650.7a63cb8b@annuminas.surriel.com> <20111010153723.6397924f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9CB516CBC4@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> <20111011125419.2702b5dc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9CB516CBFE@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> <20111011135445.f580749b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4E95917D.3080507@redhat.com> <20111012122018.690bdf28.akpm@linux-foundation.org>,<4E95F167.5050709@redhat.com> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9CB4F747B1@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: ja-JP X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: ja-JP, en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1110240328 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org saOn 10/23/2011 05:22 PM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Satoru Moriya wrote: > >> We do. >> Basically we need this kind of feature for almost all our latency >> sensitive applications to avoid latency issue in memory allocation. >> > > These are all realtime? Do you mean that these are all realtime process? If so, answer is depending on the situation. In the some situations, we can set these applications as rt-task. But the other situation, e.g. using some middlewares, package softwares etc, we can't set them as rt-task because they are not built for running as rt-task. And also it is difficult to rebuilt them for working as rt-task because they usually have huge code base. >> Currently we run those applications on custom kernels which this >> kind of patch is applied to. But it is hard for us to support every >> kernel version for it. Also there are several customers who can't >> accept a custom kernel and so they must use other commercial Unix. >> If this feature is accepted, they will definitely use it on their >> systems. >> > > That's precisely the problem, it's behavior is going to vary widely from > version to version as the implementation changes for reclaim and > compaction. I think we can do much better with the priority of kswapd and > reclaiming above the high watermark for threads that need a surplus of > extra memory because they are realtime, two things we can easily do. As I reported another mail, changing kswapd priority does not mitigate even my simple testcase very much. Of course, reclaiming above the high wmark may solve the issue on some workloads but if an application can allocate memory more than high wmark - min wmark which is extended and fast enough, latency issue will happen. Unless this latency concern is fixed, customers doesn't use vanilla kernel. Regards, Satoru From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0816B002D for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:05:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Satoru Moriya Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:04:09 -0400 Subject: RE: [PATCH -v2 -mm] add extra free kbytes tunable Message-ID: <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9CB4F747B3@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> References: <20110901105208.3849a8ff@annuminas.surriel.com> <20110901100650.6d884589.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20110901152650.7a63cb8b@annuminas.surriel.com> <20111010153723.6397924f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9CB516CBC4@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> <20111011125419.2702b5dc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9CB516CBFE@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com> <20111011135445.f580749b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4E95917D.3080507@redhat.com> <20111012122018.690bdf28.akpm@linux-foundation.org>,<4E95F167.5050709@redhat.com> <65795E11DBF1E645A09CEC7EAEE94B9CB4F747B1@USINDEVS02.corp.hds.com>, In-Reply-To: Content-Language: ja-JP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , Randy Dunlap , Satoru Moriya , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "lwoodman@redhat.com" , Seiji Aguchi , "hughd@google.com" , "hannes@cmpxchg.org" saOn 10/23/2011 05:22 PM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Satoru Moriya wrote: >=20 >> We do. >> Basically we need this kind of feature for almost all our latency >> sensitive applications to avoid latency issue in memory allocation. >> >=20 > These are all realtime? Do you mean that these are all realtime process? If so, answer is depending on the situation. In the some situations, we can set these applications as rt-task. But the other situation, e.g. using some middlewares, package softwares etc, we can't set them as rt-task because they are not built for running as rt-task. And also it is difficult to rebuilt them for working as rt-task because they usually have huge code base. >> Currently we run those applications on custom kernels which this >> kind of patch is applied to. But it is hard for us to support every >> kernel version for it. Also there are several customers who can't >> accept a custom kernel and so they must use other commercial Unix. >> If this feature is accepted, they will definitely use it on their >> systems. >> >=20 > That's precisely the problem, it's behavior is going to vary widely from= =20 > version to version as the implementation changes for reclaim and=20 > compaction. I think we can do much better with the priority of kswapd an= d=20 > reclaiming above the high watermark for threads that need a surplus of=20 > extra memory because they are realtime, two things we can easily do. As I reported another mail, changing kswapd priority does not mitigate even my simple testcase very much. Of course, reclaiming above the high wmark may solve the issue on some workloads but if an application can allocate memory more than high wmark - min wmark which is extended and fast enough, latency issue will happen. Unless this latency concern is fixed, customers doesn't use vanilla kernel. Regards, Satoru= -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org