Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:09:50 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To:     Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, jhladky@redhat.com,
        lvenanci@redhat.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] autonuma: Fix scan period updating
Message-ID: <20190624140950.GF2947@suse.de>
References: <20190624025604.30896-1-ying.huang@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190624025604.30896-1-ying.huang@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:56:04AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> The autonuma scan period should be increased (scanning is slowed down)
> if the majority of the page accesses are shared with other processes.
> But in current code, the scan period will be decreased (scanning is
> speeded up) in that situation.
> 
> This patch fixes the code.  And this has been tested via tracing the
> scan period changing and /proc/vmstat numa_pte_updates counter when
> running a multi-threaded memory accessing program (most memory
> areas are accessed by multiple threads).
> 

The patch somewhat flips the logic on whether shared or private is
considered and it's not immediately obvious why that was required. That
aside, other than the impact on numa_pte_updates, what actual
performance difference was measured and on on what workloads?

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs