On 10/13/2011 01:22 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
>> Furthermore, I am not sure that giving kswapd more CPU time is
>> going to help, because kswapd could be stuck on some lock, held
>> by a lower priority (or sleeping) context.
>>
>> I agree that the BFS patch would be worth a try, and would be
>> very pleasantly surprised if it worked, but I am not very
>> optimistic about it...
>>
>
> It may require a combination of Con's patch, increasing the priority of
> kswapd if a higher priority task kicks it in the page allocator, and an
> extra bonus on top of the high watermark if it was triggered by a
> rt-thread -- similar to ALLOC_HARDER but instead reclaiming to
> (high * 1.25).
I tested Con's patch. The results are following.
1. delayacct result
RECLAIM count delay total delay average
---------------------------------------------------------------
normal task w/o Con's patch 210 42685857 203us
rt task w/o Con's patch 32 4922368 153us
rt task w Con's patch 29 4399320 151us
2. /proc/vmstat result
normal task w/o rt task w/o rt task w/
Con's patch Con's patch Con's patch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
nr_vmscan_write 0 13160 14536
pgsteal_dma 0 0 0
pgsteal_dma32 182710 175049 169871
pgsteal_normal 10260 9499 13077
pgsteal_movable 0 0 0
pgscan_kswapd_dma 0 0 0
pgscan_kswapd_dma32 127159 149096 147924
pgscan_kswapd_normal 26094 49011 33186
pgscan_kswapd_movable 0 0 0
pgscan_direct_dma 0 0 0
pgscan_direct_dma32 55551 25923 21947
pgscan_direct_normal 7128 3624 2816
pgscan_direct_movable 0 0 0
kswapd_steal 134481 157951 159556
kswapd_inodesteal 0 0 0
kswapd_low_wmark_hit_quickly 0 0 6
kswapd_high_wmark_hit_quickly 0 0 0
allocstall 324 151 128
Unfortunately, it seems that Con's patch does not improve my
testcase so much. We may need extra bonus on the high watermark if
we take the way above. But necessary bonus depends on workloads,
hardware etc., so it can't be solved with fixed bonus, I think.
> If we're going to go with extra_free_kbytes, then I'd like to see the test
> case posted with a mathematical formula to show me what I should tune it
> to be depending on my machine's memory capacity and amount of free RAM
> when started (and I can use mem= to test it for various capacities). For
> this to be merged, there should be a clear expression that shows what the
> ideal setting of the tunable should be rather than asking for trial-and-
> error to see what works and what doesn't. If such an expression doesn't
> exist, then it's clear that the necessary setting will vary significantly
> as the implementation changes from kernel to kernel.
Hmm, try and error is tuning itself, isn't it? When we tune a system,
we usually set some knobs, run some benchmarks/tests/etc., evaluate
the results and decide which is the appropriate value.
Regards,
Satoru
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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