Thread (35 messages) 35 messages, 3 authors, 2011-08-19

Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] memg: better numa scanning

From: Michal Hocko <hidden>
Date: 2011-08-10 14:20:33
Also in: lkml

On Wed 10-08-11 09:15:44, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 16:33:14 +0200
Michal Hocko [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue 09-08-11 19:04:50, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
[...]
quoted
quoted
#!/bin/bash -x

cgset -r memory.limit_in_bytes=500M A

make -j 4 clean
sync
sync
sync
echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
sleep 1
echo 0 > /cgroup/memory/A/memory.vmscan_stat
cgexec -g memory:A -g cpuset:A time make -j 8
==

On 8cpu, 4-node fake-numa box.
How big are those nodes? I assume that you haven't used any numa
policies, right?
This box has 24GB memory and fake numa creates 6GBnode x 4.

[kamezawa@bluextal ~]$ grep MemTotal /sys/devices/system/node/node?/meminfo
/sys/devices/system/node/node0/meminfo:Node 0 MemTotal:        6290360 kB
/sys/devices/system/node/node1/meminfo:Node 1 MemTotal:        6291456 kB
/sys/devices/system/node/node2/meminfo:Node 2 MemTotal:        6291456 kB
/sys/devices/system/node/node3/meminfo:Node 3 MemTotal:        6291456 kB

2 cpus per each node. (IIRC, Hyperthread)

[kamezawa@bluextal ~]$ ls -d /sys/devices/system/node/node?/cpu?
/sys/devices/system/node/node0/cpu0  /sys/devices/system/node/node2/cpu2
/sys/devices/system/node/node0/cpu4  /sys/devices/system/node/node2/cpu6
/sys/devices/system/node/node1/cpu1  /sys/devices/system/node/node3/cpu3
/sys/devices/system/node/node1/cpu5  /sys/devices/system/node/node3/cpu7

And yes, I don't use any numa policy other than spread-page.
OK, so the load should fit into a single node without spread-page.
quoted
quoted
(each node has 2cpus.)

Under the limit of 500M, 'make' need to scan memory to reclaim.
This tests see how vmscan works.

When cpuset.memory_spread_page==0.
quoted
[Before patch]
773.07user 305.45system 4:09.64elapsed 432%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1456576maxresident)k
4397944inputs+5093232outputs (9688major+35689066minor)pagefaults 0swaps
scanned_pages_by_limit 3867645
scanned_anon_pages_by_limit 1518266
scanned_file_pages_by_limit 2349379
rotated_pages_by_limit 1502640
rotated_anon_pages_by_limit 1416627
rotated_file_pages_by_limit 86013
freed_pages_by_limit 1005141
freed_anon_pages_by_limit 24577
freed_file_pages_by_limit 980564
elapsed_ns_by_limit 82833866094

[Patched]
773.73user 305.09system 3:51.28elapsed 466%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1458464maxresident)k
4400264inputs+4797056outputs (5578major+35690202minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Hmm, 57% reduction of major page faults which doesn't fit with other
numbers. At least I do not see any corelation with them. Your workload
has freed more or less the same number of file pages (>1% less). Do you
have a theory for that?
[Before] freed_anon_pages_by_limit 24577 
[After]  freed_anon_pages_by_limit 20599

This reduces 3987 swap out. Changes in major fault is 4110.
I think this is major reason to reduce the major faults.
Ahh, right you are.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help