From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933016AbcGLC5M (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2016 22:57:12 -0400 Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.141]:16548 "EHLO ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932938AbcGLC5J (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jul 2016 22:57:09 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 304 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 22:57:08 EDT X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjAMADlahFd5LMd7EGdsb2JhbABcgz6BUoZvnSoBAQaMT4YJhAmGEgQCAoEtTQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQEBAT5AhF0BBTocIxAIAw4KCSUPBSUDBxoTiC+/FgELJR6FRIUVhBENhX4FmRqOSo83kBGEVyoyh3sBJYEeAQEB Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:52:01 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Mel Gorman Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , Rik van Riel , Vlastimil Babka , Johannes Weiner , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31] Move LRU page reclaim from zones to nodes v8 Message-ID: <20160712025201.GH1922@dastard> References: <1467387466-10022-1-git-send-email-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <20160707232713.GM27480@dastard> <20160708095203.GB11498@techsingularity.net> <20160711004757.GN12670@dastard> <20160711090224.GB9806@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160711090224.GB9806@techsingularity.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 Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:02:24AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:47:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > I had tested XFS with earlier releases and noticed no major problems > > > so later releases tested only one filesystem. Given the changes since, > > > a retest is desirable. I've posted the current version of the series but > > > I'll queue the tests to run over the weekend. They are quite time consuming > > > to run unfortunately. > > > > Understood. I'm not following the patchset all that closely, so I > > didn' know you'd already tested XFS. > > > > It was needed anyway. Not all of them completed over the weekend. In > particular, the NUMA machine is taking its time because many of the > workloads are scaled by memory size and it takes longer. > > > > On the fsmark configuration, I configured the test to use 4K files > > > instead of 0-sized files that normally would be used to stress inode > > > creation/deletion. This is to have a mix of page cache and slab > > > allocations. Shout if this does not suit your expectations. > > > > Sounds fine. I usually limit that test to 10 million inodes - that's > > my "10-4" test. > > > > Thanks. > > > I'm not going to go through most of the results in detail. The raw data > is verbose and not necessarily useful in most cases. Yup, numbers look pretty good and all my concerns have gone away. Thanks for testing, Mel! :P Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com