On Wed, 23 May 2007 08:50:01 +1000
Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 May 2007 06:42, Ash Milsted wrote:
> > Hi. I just did some video encoding on my desktop and I was noticing
> > (for the first time in a while) that running apps had to hit swap quite
> > a lot when I
On Wed, 23 May 2007 08:50:01 +1000
Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 06:42, Ash Milsted wrote:
Hi. I just did some video encoding on my desktop and I was noticing
(for the first time in a while) that running apps had to hit swap quite
a lot when I switched to
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 06:42, Ash Milsted wrote:
> Hi. I just did some video encoding on my desktop and I was noticing
> (for the first time in a while) that running apps had to hit swap quite
> a lot when I switched to them (the encoding was going at full blast for
> most of the day, and most
On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:37:54 +1000
Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > there was nothing else running on the system - so i suspect the
> > > > > swapin activity flagged 'itself' as some
* Michael Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It clearly should not consider 'itself' as IO activity. This
> > suggests some bug in the 'detect activity' mechanism, agreed? I'm
> > wondering whether you are seeing the same problem, or is all
> > swap-prefetch IO on your system continuous
On 5/22/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > there was nothing else running on the system - so i suspect the
> > > > > swapin activity
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hm, what do you call 'journal writeout' here that would be happening
> > on my system?
>
> Not really sure what you have in terms of fs, but here even with
> nothing going on, ext3 writes to disk every 5 seconds with kjournald.
i have ext3, but
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:57, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:46, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > It clearly should not consider 'itself' as IO activity. This
> > > suggests some bug in the 'detect activity' mechanism, agreed? I'm
> > >
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:46, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > It clearly should not consider 'itself' as IO activity. This
> > suggests some bug in the 'detect activity' mechanism, agreed? I'm
> > wondering whether you are seeing the same problem, or is all
>
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:46, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> It clearly should not consider 'itself' as IO activity. This suggests
> some bug in the 'detect activity' mechanism, agreed? I'm wondering
> whether you are seeing the same problem, or is all swap-prefetch IO on
> your system continuous until it's
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > there was nothing else running on the system - so i suspect the
> > > > > swapin activity flagged 'itself' as some 'other' activity and
> > > > >
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > there was nothing else running on the system - so i suspect the
> > > > swapin activity flagged 'itself' as some 'other' activity and
> > > > stopped? The swapins happened in 4 bursts, separated by
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > there was nothing else running on the system - so i suspect the
> > > swapin activity flagged 'itself' as some 'other' activity and
> > > stopped? The swapins happened in 4 bursts, separated by 5 seconds
> > > total idleness.
> >
> > I've noted
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:15, Antonino Ingargiola wrote:
> 2007/5/21, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > A suggestion for improvement: right now swap-prefetch does a small
> > > > bit of swapin every 5 seconds and stays idle inbetween. Could this
2007/5/21, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A suggestion for improvement: right now swap-prefetch does a small
> > bit of swapin every 5 seconds and stays idle inbetween. Could this
> > perhaps be made more agressive (optionally perhaps), if the
On 5/22/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there was nothing else running on the system - so i suspect the
swapin activity flagged 'itself' as some
* Michael Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It clearly should not consider 'itself' as IO activity. This
suggests some bug in the 'detect activity' mechanism, agreed? I'm
wondering whether you are seeing the same problem, or is all
swap-prefetch IO on your system continuous until it's
On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:37:54 +1000
Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there was nothing else running on the system - so i suspect the
swapin activity flagged 'itself' as some 'other' activity
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 06:42, Ash Milsted wrote:
Hi. I just did some video encoding on my desktop and I was noticing
(for the first time in a while) that running apps had to hit swap quite
a lot when I switched to them (the encoding was going at full blast for
most of the day, and most of
2007/5/21, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A suggestion for improvement: right now swap-prefetch does a small
bit of swapin every 5 seconds and stays idle inbetween. Could this
perhaps be made more agressive (optionally perhaps), if the system
is
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:15, Antonino Ingargiola wrote:
2007/5/21, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A suggestion for improvement: right now swap-prefetch does a small
bit of swapin every 5 seconds and stays idle inbetween. Could this
perhaps be
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there was nothing else running on the system - so i suspect the
swapin activity flagged 'itself' as some 'other' activity and
stopped? The swapins happened in 4 bursts, separated by 5 seconds
total idleness.
I've noted burst swapins
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there was nothing else running on the system - so i suspect the
swapin activity flagged 'itself' as some 'other' activity and
stopped? The swapins happened in 4 bursts, separated by 5 seconds
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there was nothing else running on the system - so i suspect the
swapin activity flagged 'itself' as some 'other' activity and
stopped? The swapins
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:46, Ingo Molnar wrote:
It clearly should not consider 'itself' as IO activity. This suggests
some bug in the 'detect activity' mechanism, agreed? I'm wondering
whether you are seeing the same problem, or is all swap-prefetch IO on
your system continuous until it's
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:46, Ingo Molnar wrote:
It clearly should not consider 'itself' as IO activity. This
suggests some bug in the 'detect activity' mechanism, agreed? I'm
wondering whether you are seeing the same problem, or is all
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:57, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 22 May 2007 20:46, Ingo Molnar wrote:
It clearly should not consider 'itself' as IO activity. This
suggests some bug in the 'detect activity' mechanism, agreed? I'm
wondering whether you
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hm, what do you call 'journal writeout' here that would be happening
on my system?
Not really sure what you have in terms of fs, but here even with
nothing going on, ext3 writes to disk every 5 seconds with kjournald.
i have ext3, but it doesnt
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A suggestion for improvement: right now swap-prefetch does a small
> > bit of swapin every 5 seconds and stays idle inbetween. Could this
> > perhaps be made more agressive (optionally perhaps), if the system
> > is not swapping otherwise? If
On Monday 21 May 2007 20:03, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It turns out that fixing swap prefetch was not that hard to fix and
> > improve upon, and since Andrew hasn't dropped swap prefetch, instead
> > here are a swag of fixes and improvements, [...]
>
> it's
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It turns out that fixing swap prefetch was not that hard to fix and
> improve upon, and since Andrew hasn't dropped swap prefetch, instead
> here are a swag of fixes and improvements, [...]
it's a reliable win on my testbox too:
# echo 1 >
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It turns out that fixing swap prefetch was not that hard to fix and
improve upon, and since Andrew hasn't dropped swap prefetch, instead
here are a swag of fixes and improvements, [...]
it's a reliable win on my testbox too:
# echo 1
On Monday 21 May 2007 20:03, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It turns out that fixing swap prefetch was not that hard to fix and
improve upon, and since Andrew hasn't dropped swap prefetch, instead
here are a swag of fixes and improvements, [...]
it's a reliable
* Con Kolivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A suggestion for improvement: right now swap-prefetch does a small
bit of swapin every 5 seconds and stays idle inbetween. Could this
perhaps be made more agressive (optionally perhaps), if the system
is not swapping otherwise? If block-IO level
Con wrote:
> Ok so change the default value for swap_prefetch to 0 when CPUSETS is
> enabled?
I don't see why that special case for cpusets is needed.
I'm suggesting making no special cases for CPUSETS at all, until and
unless we find reason to.
In other words, I'm suggesting simply removing
On Saturday 12 May 2007 18:14, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Ummm this is what I've been saying for over a year now but noone has been
> > listening.
>
> Well ... if there is a problem using prefetch and cpusets together,
> it doesn't look like the two of us are going to find it.
>
> I should probably
> Ummm this is what I've been saying for over a year now but noone has been
> listening.
Well ... if there is a problem using prefetch and cpusets together,
it doesn't look like the two of us are going to find it.
I should probably look at your patch to answer this next question,
but being a
On Saturday 12 May 2007 15:51, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Con wrote:
> > Hmm I'm not really sure what it takes to make it cpuset aware;
> > ...
> > It is numa aware to some degree. It stores the node id and when it starts
> > prefetching it only prefetches to nodes that are suitable for prefetching
> >
On Saturday 12 May 2007 15:51, Paul Jackson wrote:
Con wrote:
Hmm I'm not really sure what it takes to make it cpuset aware;
...
It is numa aware to some degree. It stores the node id and when it starts
prefetching it only prefetches to nodes that are suitable for prefetching
to ...
Ummm this is what I've been saying for over a year now but noone has been
listening.
Well ... if there is a problem using prefetch and cpusets together,
it doesn't look like the two of us are going to find it.
I should probably look at your patch to answer this next question,
but being a lazy
On Saturday 12 May 2007 18:14, Paul Jackson wrote:
Ummm this is what I've been saying for over a year now but noone has been
listening.
Well ... if there is a problem using prefetch and cpusets together,
it doesn't look like the two of us are going to find it.
I should probably look at
Con wrote:
Ok so change the default value for swap_prefetch to 0 when CPUSETS is
enabled?
I don't see why that special case for cpusets is needed.
I'm suggesting making no special cases for CPUSETS at all, until and
unless we find reason to.
In other words, I'm suggesting simply removing
Con wrote:
> Hmm I'm not really sure what it takes to make it cpuset aware;
> ...
> It is numa aware to some degree. It stores the node id and when it starts
> prefetching it only prefetches to nodes that are suitable for prefetching to
> ...
> It would be absolutely trivial to add a check for
On Saturday 12 May 2007 15:03, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Swap prefetch is not cpuset aware so make the config option depend on
> > !CPUSETS.
>
> Ok.
>
> Could you explain what it means to say "swap prefetch is not cpuset aware",
> or could you give a rough idea of what it would take to make it
> Swap prefetch is not cpuset aware so make the config option depend on
> !CPUSETS.
Ok.
Could you explain what it means to say "swap prefetch is not cpuset aware",
or could you give a rough idea of what it would take to make it cpuset aware?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that no one would
Swap prefetch is not cpuset aware so make the config option depend on
!CPUSETS.
Ok.
Could you explain what it means to say swap prefetch is not cpuset aware,
or could you give a rough idea of what it would take to make it cpuset aware?
I wouldn't go so far as to say that no one would ever
On Saturday 12 May 2007 15:03, Paul Jackson wrote:
Swap prefetch is not cpuset aware so make the config option depend on
!CPUSETS.
Ok.
Could you explain what it means to say swap prefetch is not cpuset aware,
or could you give a rough idea of what it would take to make it cpuset
aware?
Con wrote:
Hmm I'm not really sure what it takes to make it cpuset aware;
...
It is numa aware to some degree. It stores the node id and when it starts
prefetching it only prefetches to nodes that are suitable for prefetching to
...
It would be absolutely trivial to add a check for
48 matches
Mail list logo
