xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: numa: Slow PTE scan rate if migration failures occur

To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mm: numa: Slow PTE scan rate if migration failures occur
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:09:15 -0700
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hS1eaRWr46AOvX6TpsbrnwKicKLBlxPg79GsV+Si8FQ=; b=bSkY84fpLoSCbmAyPeDpi754IJ4S5eFWFhu5Pcax5cEgkFiXQhsod3s2FO4FCr627f OotBCX7F6sRkAZAPr1O7aOMFRlNKb5SmbadlxBwAEeiVJrvAkBFsmGfTCvXAfpoNF2Vw X1eDvMV2DsXUkI9t1D8x1dsly4w6hv+wOssLHpbn5JviecxSCDXLPzPJFFmFZSkAMoUh kxLrF75+Hy+IMtxygwquD8ERpO2rnei4cUtRxibT6Rq5y7gBfNB6w4rxBkoHyohCB687 mgkPhLrv4MsxnaW/Vib1LAgOSh/lWG8d0QFMZ7G2W6HHjrSRKroQWfYw2aawFvBgRWDS d8PA==
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hS1eaRWr46AOvX6TpsbrnwKicKLBlxPg79GsV+Si8FQ=; b=MB9ARd1CAw6C4YsVauUwZ4f60tn+HUz9Yq+RuDRhGWEgUkq+Myei6fRNjKFqcda5B7 Iqt9dfy4RG7oq8iVK3VKaJM65e8JMPQA6uiELMsdbLiu2neJkaIqGeXxBTZcXI3Mw5wB /Yoz86EvRtFFTnfbWPXZnVhK7Uf5brKIjc7tg=
In-reply-to: <20150319141022.GD3087@xxxxxxx>
References: <20150312131045.GE3406@xxxxxxx> <CA+55aFx=81BGnQFNhnAGu6CetL7yifPsnD-+v7Y6QRqwgH47gQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150312184925.GH3406@xxxxxxx> <20150317070655.GB10105@dastard> <CA+55aFzdLnFdku-gnm3mGbeS=QauYBNkFQKYXJAGkrMd2jKXhw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150317205104.GA28621@dastard> <CA+55aFzSPcNgxw4GC7aAV1r0P5LniyVVC66COz=3cgMcx73Nag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150317220840.GC28621@dastard> <CA+55aFwne-fe_Gg-_GTUo+iOAbbNpLBa264JqSFkH79EULyAqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CA+55aFy-Mw74rAdLMMMUgnsG3ZttMWVNGz7CXZJY7q9fqyRYfg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150319141022.GD3087@xxxxxxx>
Sender: linus971@xxxxxxxxx
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> -       if (!pmd_dirty(pmd))
> +       /* See similar comment in do_numa_page for explanation */
> +       if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE))

Yeah, that would certainly be a whole lot more obvious than all the
"if this particular pte/pmd looks like X" tests.

So that, together with scanning rate improvements (this *does* seem to
be somewhat chaotic, so it's quite possible that the current scanning
rate thing is just fairly unstable) is likely the right thing. I'd
just like to _understand_ why that write/dirty bit makes such a
difference. I thought I understood what was going on, and was happy,
and then Dave come with his crazy numbers.

Damn you Dave, and damn your numbers and "facts" and stuff. Sometimes
I much prefer ignorant bliss.

                           Linus

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>