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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190624025604.30896-1-ying.huang@intel.com> <20190624140950.GF2947@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20190624140950.GF2947@suse.de>
From:   huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jun 2019 21:23:22 +0800
Message-ID: <CAC=cRTNYUxGUcSUvXa-g9hia49TgrjkzE-b06JbBtwSn2zWYsw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] autonuma: Fix scan period updating
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc:     Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        LKML <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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 10:25 PM Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
>
> 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?

The original scanning period updating logic doesn't match the original
patch description and comments.  I think the original patch
description and comments make more sense.  So I fix the code logic to
make it match the original patch description and comments.

If my understanding to the original code logic and the original patch
description and comments were correct, do you think the original patch
description and comments are wrong so we need to fix the comments
instead?  Or you think we should prove whether the original patch
description and comments are correct?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying