Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:14:40 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
       Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
       Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
       "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@intel.com>,
       "linuxram@us.ibm.com" <linuxram@us.ibm.com>,
       linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Reintroduce zone_reclaim_interval for when
	zone_reclaim() scans and fails to avoid CPU spinning at 100% on NUMA
Message-ID: <20090610021440.GB6597@localhost>
References: <1244466090-10711-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1244466090-10711-2-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20090609015822.GA6740@localhost> <20090609081424.GD18380@csn.ul.ie> <20090609082539.GA6897@localhost> <20090609083153.GG18380@csn.ul.ie> <20090609090735.GC7108@localhost> <20090609094050.GL18380@csn.ul.ie> <20090609133804.GB6583@localhost> <20090609150619.GT18380@csn.ul.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090609150619.GT18380@csn.ul.ie>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1792
Lines: 38

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 11:06:19PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 05:40:50PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > 
> > > Conceivably though, zone_reclaim_interval could automatically tune
> > > itself based on a heuristic like this if the administrator does not give
> > > a specific value. I think that would be an interesting follow on once
> > > we've brought back zone_reclaim_interval and get a feeling for how often
> > > it is actually used.
> > 
> > Well I don't think that's good practice. There are heuristic
> > calculations all over the kernel. Shall we exporting parameters to
> > user space just because we are not absolutely sure? Or shall we ship
> > the heuristics and do adjustments based on feedbacks and only export
> > parameters when we find _known cases_ that cannot be covered by pure
> > heuristics?
> > 
> 
> Good question - I don't have a satisfactory answer but I intuitively find
> the zone_reclaim_interval easier to deal with than the heuristic.  That said,
> I would prefer if neither was required.

Yes - can we rely on the (improved) accounting to make our "failure feedback"
patches unnecessary? :)

Thanks,
Fengguang

> In the patchset, I've added a counter for the number of times that the
> scan-avoidance heuristic fails. If the tmpfs problem has been resolved
> (patch with bug reporter, am awaiting test), I'll drop zone_reclaim_interval
> altogether and we'll use the counter to detect if/when this situation
> occurs again.
--
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/