On 17.02.2014 [15:14:06 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > Here is what I'm running into now:
> >
> > setup_arch ->
> > do_init_bootmem ->
> > cpu_numa_callback ->
> > numa_setup_cpu ->
> >
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Here is what I'm running into now:
>
> setup_arch ->
> do_init_bootmem ->
> cpu_numa_callback ->
> numa_setup_cpu ->
> map_cpu_to_node ->
>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan
wrote:
>
> Agreed that for the readahead case the above is probably more than
> sufficient.
>
> Apologies for hijacking the thread, my comments below were purely about
> the memoryless node support, not about readahead specifically.
Ok, no
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> max_sane_readahead() is also used for limiting amount of readahead for
> [fm]advice(2) WILLNEED and that is used e.g. by a dynamic linker to preload
> shared libraries into memory. So I'm convinced this usecase *will* notice
> the change -
On 14.02.2014 [02:54:06 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > There is an open issue on powerpc with memoryless nodes (inasmuch as we
> > can have them, but the kernel doesn't support it properly). There is a
> > separate discussion going on on
On 14.02.2014 [02:54:06 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
There is an open issue on powerpc with memoryless nodes (inasmuch as we
can have them, but the kernel doesn't support it properly). There is a
separate discussion going on on linuxppc-dev
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Jan Kara j...@suse.cz wrote:
max_sane_readahead() is also used for limiting amount of readahead for
[fm]advice(2) WILLNEED and that is used e.g. by a dynamic linker to preload
shared libraries into memory. So I'm convinced this usecase *will* notice
the
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Nishanth Aravamudan
n...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Agreed that for the readahead case the above is probably more than
sufficient.
Apologies for hijacking the thread, my comments below were purely about
the memoryless node support, not about readahead
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
Here is what I'm running into now:
setup_arch -
do_init_bootmem -
cpu_numa_callback -
numa_setup_cpu -
map_cpu_to_node -
On 17.02.2014 [15:14:06 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
Here is what I'm running into now:
setup_arch -
do_init_bootmem -
cpu_numa_callback -
numa_setup_cpu -
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> There is an open issue on powerpc with memoryless nodes (inasmuch as we
> can have them, but the kernel doesn't support it properly). There is a
> separate discussion going on on linuxppc-dev about what is necessary for
>
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
There is an open issue on powerpc with memoryless nodes (inasmuch as we
can have them, but the kernel doesn't support it properly). There is a
separate discussion going on on linuxppc-dev about what is necessary for
CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES
On Thu 13-02-14 16:37:53, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Is this whole thread still just for the crazy and pointless
> "max_sane_readahead()"?
>
> Or is there some *real* reason we should care?
>
> Because if it really is just for max_sane_readahead(), then for the
> love of God, let us just do this
>
On 13.02.2014 [14:41:04 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> > Thanks David, unfortunately even after applying that patch, I do not see
> > the improvement.
> >
> > Interestingly numa_mem_id() seem to still return the value of a
> > memoryless node.
> >
Hi Linus,
On 13.02.2014 [16:37:53 -0800], Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Is this whole thread still just for the crazy and pointless
> "max_sane_readahead()"?
>
> Or is there some *real* reason we should care?
There is an open issue on powerpc with memoryless nodes (inasmuch as we
can have them, but
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:37:53 -0800 Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> unsigned long max_sane_readahead(unsigned long nr)
> {
> return min(nr, 128);
> }
I bet nobody will notice.
It should be 128*4096/PAGE_CACHE_SIZE so that variations in PAGE_SIZE
don't affect readahead behaviour.
--
To
Is this whole thread still just for the crazy and pointless
"max_sane_readahead()"?
Or is there some *real* reason we should care?
Because if it really is just for max_sane_readahead(), then for the
love of God, let us just do this
unsigned long max_sane_readahead(unsigned long nr)
{
On 13.02.2014 [14:41:04 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> > Thanks David, unfortunately even after applying that patch, I do not see
> > the improvement.
> >
> > Interestingly numa_mem_id() seem to still return the value of a
> > memoryless node.
> >
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> Thanks David, unfortunately even after applying that patch, I do not see
> the improvement.
>
> Interestingly numa_mem_id() seem to still return the value of a
> memoryless node.
> May be per cpu _numa_mem_ values are not set properly. Need to dig
On 13.02.2014 [13:06:43 -0800], Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:05:31 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> >
> > > I was able to test (1) implementation on the system where readahead
> > > problem
> > > occurred. Unfortunately
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:05:31 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
>
> > I was able to test (1) implementation on the system where readahead problem
> > occurred. Unfortunately it did not help.
> >
> > Reason seem to be that
On 02/13/2014 01:35 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
I was able to test (1) implementation on the system where readahead problem
occurred. Unfortunately it did not help.
Reason seem to be that CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES dependency of
numa_mem_id(). The
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> I was able to test (1) implementation on the system where readahead problem
> occurred. Unfortunately it did not help.
>
> Reason seem to be that CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES dependency of
> numa_mem_id(). The PPC machine I am facing problem has
On 02/13/2014 01:35 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
I was able to test (1) implementation on the system where readahead problem
occurred. Unfortunately it did not help.
Reason seem to be that CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES dependency of
numa_mem_id(). The
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:05:31 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes rient...@google.com
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
I was able to test (1) implementation on the system where readahead problem
occurred. Unfortunately it did not help.
Reason seem to be that
On 13.02.2014 [13:06:43 -0800], Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 00:05:31 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes rient...@google.com
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
I was able to test (1) implementation on the system where readahead
problem
occurred.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Thanks David, unfortunately even after applying that patch, I do not see
the improvement.
Interestingly numa_mem_id() seem to still return the value of a
memoryless node.
May be per cpu _numa_mem_ values are not set properly. Need to dig out
On 13.02.2014 [14:41:04 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Thanks David, unfortunately even after applying that patch, I do not see
the improvement.
Interestingly numa_mem_id() seem to still return the value of a
memoryless node.
May be per
Is this whole thread still just for the crazy and pointless
max_sane_readahead()?
Or is there some *real* reason we should care?
Because if it really is just for max_sane_readahead(), then for the
love of God, let us just do this
unsigned long max_sane_readahead(unsigned long nr)
{
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:37:53 -0800 Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
unsigned long max_sane_readahead(unsigned long nr)
{
return min(nr, 128);
}
I bet nobody will notice.
It should be 128*4096/PAGE_CACHE_SIZE so that variations in PAGE_SIZE
don't affect
Hi Linus,
On 13.02.2014 [16:37:53 -0800], Linus Torvalds wrote:
Is this whole thread still just for the crazy and pointless
max_sane_readahead()?
Or is there some *real* reason we should care?
There is an open issue on powerpc with memoryless nodes (inasmuch as we
can have them, but the
On 13.02.2014 [14:41:04 -0800], David Rientjes wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
Thanks David, unfortunately even after applying that patch, I do not see
the improvement.
Interestingly numa_mem_id() seem to still return the value of a
memoryless node.
May be per
On Thu 13-02-14 16:37:53, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Is this whole thread still just for the crazy and pointless
max_sane_readahead()?
Or is there some *real* reason we should care?
Because if it really is just for max_sane_readahead(), then for the
love of God, let us just do this
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
I was able to test (1) implementation on the system where readahead problem
occurred. Unfortunately it did not help.
Reason seem to be that CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES dependency of
numa_mem_id(). The PPC machine I am facing problem has topology
On 02/11/2014 03:05 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
So I understood that you are suggesting implementations like below
1) I do not have problem with the below approach, I could post this in
next version.
( But this did not include 4k limit Linus mentioned
On 02/11/2014 03:05 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
So I understood that you are suggesting implementations like below
1) I do not have problem with the below approach, I could post this in
next version.
( But this did not include 4k limit Linus mentioned
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> So I understood that you are suggesting implementations like below
>
> 1) I do not have problem with the below approach, I could post this in
> next version.
> ( But this did not include 4k limit Linus mentioned to apply)
>
> unsigned long
On 02/10/2014 03:35 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
As you rightly pointed , I 'll drop remote memory term and use
something like :
"* Ensure readahead success on a memoryless node cpu. But we limit
* the readahead to 4k pages to avoid trashing page
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> As you rightly pointed , I 'll drop remote memory term and use
> something like :
>
> "* Ensure readahead success on a memoryless node cpu. But we limit
> * the readahead to 4k pages to avoid trashing page cache." ..
>
I don't know how to proceed
On 02/08/2014 02:11 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
3) Change the "readahead into remote memory" part of the documentation
which is misleading.
( I feel no need to add numa_mem_id() since we would specifically limit
the readahead with MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD
On 02/08/2014 02:11 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
3) Change the readahead into remote memory part of the documentation
which is misleading.
( I feel no need to add numa_mem_id() since we would specifically limit
the readahead with MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD in
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
As you rightly pointed , I 'll drop remote memory term and use
something like :
* Ensure readahead success on a memoryless node cpu. But we limit
* the readahead to 4k pages to avoid trashing page cache. ..
I don't know how to proceed here
On 02/10/2014 03:35 PM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
As you rightly pointed , I 'll drop remote memory term and use
something like :
* Ensure readahead success on a memoryless node cpu. But we limit
* the readahead to 4k pages to avoid trashing page
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
So I understood that you are suggesting implementations like below
1) I do not have problem with the below approach, I could post this in
next version.
( But this did not include 4k limit Linus mentioned to apply)
unsigned long
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> So following discussion TODO for my patch is:
>
> 1) Update the changelog with user visible impact of the patch.
> (Andrew's suggestion)
> 2) Add ACCESS_ONCE to numa_node_id().
> 3) Change the "readahead into remote memory" part of the documentation
>
On 02/07/2014 05:28 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Rientjes wrote:
+#define MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD 4096UL
Normally it wouldn't matter because there's no significant downside to it
racing, things like mempolicies which use numa_node_id() extensively would
result in,
On 02/07/2014 05:28 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Rientjes wrote:
+#define MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD 4096UL
Normally it wouldn't matter because there's no significant downside to it
racing, things like mempolicies which use numa_node_id() extensively would
result in,
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Raghavendra K T wrote:
So following discussion TODO for my patch is:
1) Update the changelog with user visible impact of the patch.
(Andrew's suggestion)
2) Add ACCESS_ONCE to numa_node_id().
3) Change the readahead into remote memory part of the documentation
which is
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > > > +#define MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD 4096UL
> Normally it wouldn't matter because there's no significant downside to it
> racing, things like mempolicies which use numa_node_id() extensively would
> result in, oops, a page allocation on the wrong
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:58:21 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes
> wrote:
>
> > > > +#define MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD 4096UL
> > > > /*
> > > > * Given a desired number of PAGE_CACHE_SIZE readahead pages, return a
> > > > * sensible upper limit.
> > > > */
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:58:21 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes
wrote:
> > > +#define MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD 4096UL
> > > /*
> > > * Given a desired number of PAGE_CACHE_SIZE readahead pages, return a
> > > * sensible upper limit.
> > > */
> > > unsigned long max_sane_readahead(unsigned long nr)
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > --- a/mm/readahead.c
> > +++ b/mm/readahead.c
> > @@ -237,14 +237,32 @@ int force_page_cache_readahead(struct address_space
> > *mapping, struct file *filp,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +#define MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD 4096UL
> > /*
> > *
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:23:45 +0530 Raghavendra K T
wrote:
> max_sane_readahead returns zero on the cpu having no local memory
> node. Fix that by returning a sanitized number of pages viz.,
> minimum of (requested pages, 4k)
um, fix what? The changelog should describe the user-visible impact
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:23:45 +0530 Raghavendra K T
raghavendra...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
max_sane_readahead returns zero on the cpu having no local memory
node. Fix that by returning a sanitized number of pages viz.,
minimum of (requested pages, 4k)
um, fix what? The changelog should
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
--- a/mm/readahead.c
+++ b/mm/readahead.c
@@ -237,14 +237,32 @@ int force_page_cache_readahead(struct address_space
*mapping, struct file *filp,
return ret;
}
+#define MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD 4096UL
/*
* Given a desired number
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:58:21 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes rient...@google.com
wrote:
+#define MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD 4096UL
/*
* Given a desired number of PAGE_CACHE_SIZE readahead pages, return a
* sensible upper limit.
*/
unsigned long max_sane_readahead(unsigned long
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:58:21 -0800 (PST) David Rientjes rient...@google.com
wrote:
+#define MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD 4096UL
/*
* Given a desired number of PAGE_CACHE_SIZE readahead pages, return a
* sensible upper limit.
*/
On Thu, 6 Feb 2014, David Rientjes wrote:
+#define MAX_REMOTE_READAHEAD 4096UL
Normally it wouldn't matter because there's no significant downside to it
racing, things like mempolicies which use numa_node_id() extensively would
result in, oops, a page allocation on the wrong node.
On 01/22/2014 04:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
max_sane_readahead returns zero on the cpu having no local memory
node. Fix that by returning a sanitized number of pages viz.,
minimum of (requested pages, 4k)
Result:
fadvise experiment with FADV_WILLNEED on a x240 machine with 1GB testfile
32GB*
On 01/22/2014 04:23 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
max_sane_readahead returns zero on the cpu having no local memory
node. Fix that by returning a sanitized number of pages viz.,
minimum of (requested pages, 4k)
Result:
fadvise experiment with FADV_WILLNEED on a x240 machine with 1GB testfile
32GB*
max_sane_readahead returns zero on the cpu having no local memory
node. Fix that by returning a sanitized number of pages viz.,
minimum of (requested pages, 4k)
Result:
fadvise experiment with FADV_WILLNEED on a x240 machine with 1GB testfile
32GB* 4G RAM numa machine ( 12 iterations) yielded
max_sane_readahead returns zero on the cpu having no local memory
node. Fix that by returning a sanitized number of pages viz.,
minimum of (requested pages, 4k)
Result:
fadvise experiment with FADV_WILLNEED on a x240 machine with 1GB testfile
32GB* 4G RAM numa machine ( 12 iterations) yielded
62 matches
Mail list logo
