On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 08:00:46PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 08:33:53AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 01:43:46PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 10:34:37PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 10:56:14PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> But are those migrate-page calls really common enough to make these > > > > > >> things happen often enough on the same pages for this all to matter? > > > > > > > > > > > > It's looking like that's a possibility. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm. Looking closer, commit 10c1045f28e8 already should have > > > > > re-introduced the "pte was already NUMA" case. > > > > > > > > > > So that's not it either, afaik. Plus your numbers seem to say that > > > > > it's really "migrate_pages()" that is done more. So it feels like the > > > > > numa balancing isn't working right. > > > > > > > > So that should show up in the vmstats, right? Oh, and there's a > > > > tracepoint in migrate_pages, too. Same 6x10s samples in phase 3: > > > > > > > > > > The stats indicate both more updates and more faults. Can you try this > > > please? It's against 4.0-rc1. > > > > > > ---8<--- > > > mm: numa: Reduce amount of IPI traffic due to automatic NUMA balancing > > > > Makes no noticable difference to behaviour or performance. Stats: > > > > After going through the series again, I did not spot why there is a > difference. It's functionally similar and I would hate the theory that > this is somehow hardware related due to the use of bits it takes action > on. I doubt it's hardware related - I'm testing inside a VM, and the host is a year old Dell r820 server, so it's a pretty common hardware I'd think. Guest: processor : 15 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 6 model name : QEMU Virtual CPU version 2.0.0 stepping : 3 microcode : 0x1 cpu MHz : 2199.998 cache size : 4096 KB physical id : 15 siblings : 1 core id : 0 cpu cores : 1 apicid : 15 initial apicid : 15 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 4 wp : yes flags : fpu de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 syscall nx lm rep_good nopl pni cx16 x2apic popcnt hypervisor lahf_lm bugs : bogomips : 4399.99 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: Host: processor : 31 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 45 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-4620 0 @ 2.20GHz stepping : 7 microcode : 0x70d cpu MHz : 1190.750 cache size : 16384 KB physical id : 1 siblings : 16 core id : 7 cpu cores : 8 apicid : 47 initial apicid : 47 fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 13 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf eagerfpu pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid dca sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx lahf_lm ida arat epb xsaveopt pln pts dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid bogomips : 4400.75 clflush size : 64 cache_alignment : 64 address sizes : 46 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: > There is nothing in the manual that indicates that it would. Try this > as I don't want to leave this hanging before LSF/MM because it'll mask other > reports. It alters the maximum rate automatic NUMA balancing scans ptes. > > --- > kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > index 7ce18f3c097a..40ae5d84d4ba 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > @@ -799,7 +799,7 @@ update_stats_curr_start(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se) > * calculated based on the tasks virtual memory size and > * numa_balancing_scan_size. > */ > -unsigned int sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_period_min = 1000; > +unsigned int sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_period_min = 2000; > unsigned int sysctl_numa_balancing_scan_period_max = 60000; Made absolutely no difference: 357,635 migrate:mm_migrate_pages ( +- 4.11% ) numa_hit 36724642 numa_miss 92477 numa_foreign 92477 numa_interleave 11835 numa_local 36709671 numa_other 107448 numa_pte_updates 83924860 numa_huge_pte_updates 0 numa_hint_faults 81856035 numa_hint_faults_local 22104529 numa_pages_migrated 32766735 pgmigrate_success 32766735 pgmigrate_fail 0 Runtime was actually a minute worse (18m35s vs 17m39s) than without this patch. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
