On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Testing now. It's a bit faster - three runs gave 7m35s, 7m20s and
> 7m36s. IOWs's a bit better, but not significantly. page migrations
> are pretty much unchanged, too:
>
> 558,632 migrate:mm_migrate_pages ( +- 6.38% )
Ok. That was kind of the expected thing.
I don't really know the NUMA fault rate limiting code, but one thing
that strikes me is that if it tries to balance the NUMA faults against
the *regular* faults, then maybe just the fact that we end up taking
more COW faults after a NUMA fault then means that the NUMA rate
limiting code now gets over-eager (because it sees all those extra
non-numa faults).
Mel, does that sound at all possible? I really have never looked at
the magic automatic rate handling..
Linus
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
