Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932541AbVKWVeH (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:34:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932539AbVKWVeG (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:34:06 -0500 Received: from fmr22.intel.com ([143.183.121.14]:38825 "EHLO scsfmr002.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932541AbVKWVeE (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2005 16:34:04 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Free pages from local pcp lists under tight memory conditions From: Rohit Seth To: Andrew Morton Cc: clameter@engr.sgi.com, torvalds@osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20051123132647.257710b9.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20051122161000.A22430@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <1132775194.25086.54.camel@akash.sc.intel.com> <20051123115545.69087adf.akpm@osdl.org> <1132779605.25086.69.camel@akash.sc.intel.com> <20051123132647.257710b9.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 13:40:48 -0800 Message-Id: <1132782048.25086.76.camel@akash.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Nov 2005 21:33:50.0172 (UTC) FILETIME=[97FD31C0:01C5F075] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1354 Lines: 33 On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 13:26 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Rohit Seth wrote: > > > > > I don't think Martin was able to demonstrate much benefit from the lock > > > contention reduction on 16-way NUMAQ either. > > > > > > So I dithered for months and it was a marginal merge, so it's appropriate > > > to justify the continued presence of the code. > > > > > > > May be the limits on the number of pages hanging on the per_cpu_pagelist > > was (or even now is) too small (for them to give any meaningful gain). > > May be we should have more physical contiguity in each of these pcps to > > give better cache spread. > > Could be. The initial settings were pretty arbitrary - I assumed that > someone would get in and tune them up, but nothing much happened. Perhaps > we should expose the thresholds in /proc/sys/vm so they're easier to play > with. Most certainly. If I had a patch ready...I would have given you one right away :-) Though I will work on it... It surely is unfortunate that we have not digged deeper into this area (in terms of optimizations).... -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/