Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750870AbWCKGEP (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:04:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750865AbWCKGEP (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:04:15 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20]:7068 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750718AbWCKGEP (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Mar 2006 01:04:15 -0500 X-Authenticated: #14349625 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Implement swap prefetching tweaks From: Mike Galbraith To: Con Kolivas Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck@vds.kolivas.org In-Reply-To: <1142056851.7819.54.camel@homer> References: <200603102054.20077.kernel@kolivas.org> <200603111450.39305.kernel@kolivas.org> <1142055239.7819.47.camel@homer> <200603111650.23727.kernel@kolivas.org> <1142056851.7819.54.camel@homer> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 07:05:14 +0100 Message-Id: <1142057114.7819.57.camel@homer> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3554 Lines: 71 On Sat, 2006-03-11 at 07:00 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Sat, 2006-03-11 at 16:50 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > On Saturday 11 March 2006 16:33, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Sat, 2006-03-11 at 14:50 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > On Saturday 11 March 2006 09:35, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > Con Kolivas wrote: > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > + * get_page_state is super expensive so we only perform it every > > > > > > + * SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX prefetched_pages. > > > > > > > > > > nr_running() is similarly expensive btw. > > > > > > > > Yes which is why I do it just as infrequently as get_page_state. > > > > > > > > > > * We also test if we're the only > > > > > > + * task running anywhere. We want to have as little impact on all > > > > > > + * resources (cpu, disk, bus etc). As this iterates over every cpu > > > > > > + * we measure this infrequently. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > + if (!(sp_stat.prefetched_pages % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX)) { > > > > > > + unsigned long cpuload = nr_running(); > > > > > > + > > > > > > + if (cpuload > 1) > > > > > > + goto out; > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, this is just wrong. If swap prefetch is useful then it's also > > > > > useful if some task happens to be sitting over in the corner > > > > > calculating pi. > > > > > > > > > > What's the actual problem here? Someone's 3d game went blippy? Why? > > > > > How much? Are we missing a cond_resched()? > > > > > > > > No, it's pretty easy to reproduce, kprefetchd sits there in > > > > uninterruptible sleep with one cpu on SMP pegged at 100% iowait due to > > > > it. This tends to have noticeable effects everywhere on HT or SMP. On UP > > > > the yielding helped it but even then it still causes blips. How much? > > > > Well to be honest it's noticeable a shipload. Running a game, any game, > > > > that uses 100% (and most fancy games do) causes stuttering on audio, > > > > pauses and so on. This is evident on linux native games, games under > > > > emulators or qemu and so on. That iowait really hurts, and tweaking just > > > > priority doesn't help it in any way. > > > > > > That doesn't really make sense to me. If a task can trigger audio > > > dropout and stalls by sleeping, we have a serious problem. In your > > > SMP/HT case, I'd start crawling over the load balancing code. I can't > > > see how trivial CPU with non-saturated IO can cause dropout in the UP > > > case either. Am I missing something? > > > > Clearly you, me and everyone else is missing something. I see it with each > > task bound to one cpu with cpu affinity so it's not a balancing issue. Try it > > yourself if you can instead of not believing me. Get a big dd reader > > (virtually no cpu and all io wait sleep) on one cpu and try and play a game > > on the other cpu. It dies rectally. > > I said it didn't make sense to me, not that I didn't believe you. If I > had a real SMP box, I would look into it, but all I have is HT. > > If you're creating a lot of traffic, I can see it causing problems. I > was under the impression that you were doing minimal IO and absolutely > trivial CPU. That's what didn't make sense to me to be clear. > > -Mike P.S. If it's hefty IO, it makes sense, and having the ability to do PIO instead of DMA would be probably help. - 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/