On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 06:49:37PM +0400, Glauber Costa wrote: > On 05/17/2013 11:29 AM, Glauber Costa wrote: > > Except that shrink_slab_node would also defer work, right? > > > >> > The only thing I don't like about this is the extra nodemask needed, > >> > which, like the scan control, would have to sit on the stack. > >> > Suggestions for avoiding that problem are welcome.. :) > >> > > > I will try to come up with a patch to do all this, and then we can > > concretely discuss. > > You are also of course welcome to do so as well =) > > > All right. > > I played a bit today with variations of this patch that will keep the > deferred count per node. I will rebase the whole series ontop of it (the > changes can get quite disruptive) and post. I want to believe that > after this, all our regression problems will be gone (famous last words). > > As I have told you, I wasn't seeing problems like you are, and > speculated that this was due to the disk speeds. While this is true, > the patch I came up with makes my workload actually a lot better. > While my caches weren't being emptied, they were being slightly depleted > and then slowly filled again. With my new patch, it is almost > a straight line throughout the whole find run. There is a dent here and > there eventually, but it recovers quickly. It takes some time as well > for steady state to be reached, but once it is, we have all variables > in the equation (dentries, inodes, etc) basically flat. So I guess it > works, and I am confident that it will make your workload better. Sounds promising. A non-numa system gives dead flat linesonthat workload, and that's how I want a numa system to behave as well when there is even pressure applied across all nodes. Sorry for not doing more here - I've been flat out the last couple of days with XFS CRC stuff. Let me know when you have a tree rebased as far as this patch and I'll run some tests here.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
