From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Cody P Schafer <cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mm: percpu pages: up batch size to fix arithmetic?? errror
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 08:21:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5231DBE9.2090008@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00000141128835e1-8664ca3a-c439-4d9d-89cb-308664595db4-000000@email.amazonses.com>
On 09/12/2013 07:16 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2013, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
>> 3. We want ->high to approximate the size of the cache which is
>> private to a given cpu. But, that's complicated by the L3 caches
>> and hyperthreading today.
>
> well lets keep it well below that. There are other caches (slab related
> f.e.) that are also in constant use.
At the moment, we've got a on-size-fits-all approach. If you have more
than 512MB of RAM in a zone, you get the high=186(744kb)/batch=31(124kb)
behavior. On my laptop, I've got 3500kB of L2+L3 for 4 logical cpus, or
~875kB/cpu. According to what you're saying, the high mark is probably
a _bit_ too high. On a modern server CPU, the caches are about double
that (per cpu).
>> I'll take one of my big systems and run it with some various ->high
>> settings and see if it makes any difference.
>
> Do you actually see contention issues on the locks? I think we have a
> tendency to batch too much in too many caches.
Nope. This all came out of me wondering what that /=4 did. It's pretty
clear that we've diverged a bit from what the original intent of the
code was. We need to at _least_ fix the comments up.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-12 15:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-11 22:08 [RFC][PATCH] mm: percpu pages: up batch size to fix arithmetic?? errror Dave Hansen
2013-09-11 23:08 ` Cody P Schafer
2013-09-11 23:21 ` Cody P Schafer
2013-09-12 0:20 ` Dave Hansen
2013-09-12 14:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-09-12 15:21 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2013-09-11 23:58 ` Dave Hansen
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 \
--in-reply-to=5231DBE9.2090008@sr71.net \
--to=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=cody@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).