Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751347AbWCKHYS (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Mar 2006 02:24:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751866AbWCKHYS (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Mar 2006 02:24:18 -0500 Received: from mail23.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.133.164]:58521 "EHLO mail23.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751728AbWCKHYR (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Mar 2006 02:24:17 -0500 From: Con Kolivas To: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Implement swap prefetching tweaks Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:24:05 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck@vds.kolivas.org References: <200603102054.20077.kernel@kolivas.org> <200603111650.23727.kernel@kolivas.org> <1142056851.7819.54.camel@homer> In-Reply-To: <1142056851.7819.54.camel@homer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603111824.06274.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3850 Lines: 76 On Saturday 11 March 2006 17:00, 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. No doubt it would be better on an SMP box. The norm is, however, for all these multi-core, multi-threading cpus to be more common than real SMP and they all share varying amounts of their resources. > 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. A lot of cpu would be easier to handle; it's using absolutely miniscule amounts of cpu. The IO is massive though (and seeky in nature), and reading from a swap partition seems particularly expensive in this regard. Cheers, Con - 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/