Subject: Re: [patch] Reset the high water marks in CPUs pcp list
From: Rohit Seth <rohit.seth@intel.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com>, akpm@osdl.org,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, Mattia Dongili <malattia@linux.it>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, steiner@sgi.com
In-Reply-To: <433B8E76.9080005@yahoo.com.au>
References: <20050928105009.B29282@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.62.0509281259550.14892@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	 <1127939185.5046.17.camel@akash.sc.intel.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.62.0509281408480.15213@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	 <1127943168.5046.39.camel@akash.sc.intel.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.62.0509281455310.15902@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
	 <433B8E76.9080005@yahoo.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Intel 
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:34:19 -0700
Message-Id: <1128011659.3735.3.camel@akash.sc.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 917
Lines: 24

On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 16:49 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:

> I don't see that there would be any problems with playing with the
> ->high and ->low numbers so long as they are a reasonable multiple
> of batch, however I would question the merit of setting the high
> watermark of the cold queue to ->batch + 1 (should really stay at
> 2*batch IMO).
> 

I agree that this watermark is little low at this point.  But that is
mainly because currently we don't have a way to drain the pcps for low
memory conditions.  Once I add that support, I will bump up the high
water marks.

Can you share a list of specific workloads that you ran earlier while
fixing these numbers.

-rohit

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/