From: Mel Gorman <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Nicholas Piggin <email@example.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Dave Hansen <email@example.com>, Bob Peterson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <email@example.com>, Steven Whitehouse <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Andrew Lutomirski <email@example.com>, Andreas Gruenbacher <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Peter Zijlstra <email@example.com>, linux-mm <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: add PageWaiters indicating tasks are waiting for a page bit Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:24:39 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 03:26:15PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > And I fixed that too. > > > > Of course, I didn't test the changes (apart from building it). But > > I've been running the previous version since yesterday, so far no > > issues. > > It looks good to me. > FWIW, I blindly queued a test of Nick's patch, Linus' patch on top and PeterZ's patch using 4.9 as a baseline so all could be applied cleanly. 3 machines were used, one one of them NUMA with 2 sockets. The UMA machines showed nothing unusual. kernel building showed nothing unusual on any machine git checkout in a loop showed; o minor gains with Nick's patch o no impact from Linus's patch o flat performance from PeterZ's git test suite showed o close to flat performance on all patches o Linus' patch on top showed increased variability but not serious will-it-scale pagefault tests o page_fault1 and page_fault2 showed no differences in processes o page_fault3 using processes did show some large losses at some process counts on all patches. The losses were not consistent on each run. There also was no consistently at loss with increasing process counts. It did appear that Peter's patch had fewer problems with only one thread count showing problems so it *may* be more resistent to the problem but not completely and it's not obvious why it might be so it could be a testing anomaly o page_fault3 using threads didn't show anything unusual. It's possible that any problem with the waitqueue lookups is hidden by mmap_sem I think I can see something similar to Dave but not consistently and not as severe and only using processes for page_fault3. Linus's patch appears to help a little but not eliminate the problem. Given the machine only had 2 sockets, it's prefectly possible that Dave can see a consistent problem that I cannot. During the test run, I hadn't collected the profiles to see what is going on as the test queueing was a drive-by bit of work while on holiday. Reading both Nick's (which is already merged so somewhat moot) and PeterZ's patch, I did find Nick's easier to understand with some minor gripes about naming. None of the patches showed the same lost wakeup I'd seen once on earlier prototypes. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-03 10:25 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-12-25 3:00 [PATCH 0/2] PageWaiters again Nicholas Piggin 2016-12-25 3:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: Use owner_priv bit for PageSwapCache, valid when PageSwapBacked Nicholas Piggin 2016-12-25 5:13 ` Hugh Dickins 2016-12-25 3:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: add PageWaiters indicating tasks are waiting for a page bit Nicholas Piggin 2016-12-25 21:51 ` Linus Torvalds 2016-12-26 1:16 ` Nicholas Piggin 2016-12-26 19:07 ` Linus Torvalds 2016-12-27 11:19 ` Nicholas Piggin 2016-12-27 18:58 ` Linus Torvalds 2016-12-27 19:23 ` Linus Torvalds 2016-12-27 19:24 ` Linus Torvalds 2016-12-27 19:40 ` Linus Torvalds 2016-12-27 20:17 ` Linus Torvalds 2016-12-28 3:53 ` Nicholas Piggin 2016-12-28 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds 2016-12-29 4:08 ` Nicholas Piggin 2016-12-29 4:16 ` Linus Torvalds 2016-12-29 5:26 ` Nicholas Piggin 2017-01-03 10:24 ` Mel Gorman [this message] 2017-01-03 12:29 ` Nicholas Piggin 2017-01-03 17:18 ` Mel Gorman 2016-12-29 22:16 ` [PATCH] mm/filemap: fix parameters to test_bit() Olof Johansson
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: add PageWaiters indicating tasks are waiting for a page bit' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).