On Saturday 11 March 2006 05:18, Con Kolivas wrote yet: > On Saturday 11 March 2006 10:11, Peter Williams wrote: > > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Con Kolivas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> * We also test if we're the only > > >>+ * task running anywhere. We want to have as little impact on all > > >>+ * resources (cpu, disk, bus etc). As this iterates over every cpu > > >>+ * we measure this infrequently. > > >>+ */ > > >>+ if (!(sp_stat.prefetched_pages % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX)) { > > >>+ unsigned long cpuload = nr_running(); > > >>+ > > >>+ if (cpuload > 1) > > >>+ goto out; > > > > > > Sorry, this is just wrong. If swap prefetch is useful then it's also > > > useful if some task happens to be sitting over in the corner > > > calculating pi. > > > > On SMP systems, something based on the run queues' raw_weighted_load > > fields (comes with smpnice patch) might be more useful than nr_running() > > as it contains information about the priority of the running tasks. > > Perhaps (raw_weighted_load() > SCHED_LOAD_SCALE) or some variation, > > where raw_weighted_load() is the sum of that field for all CPUs) would > > suffice. It would mean "there's more than the equivalent of one nice==0 > > task running" and shouldn't be any more expensive than nr_running(). > > Dividing SCHED_LOAD_SCALE by some number would be an obvious variation > > to try as would taking into account this process's contribution to the > > weighted load. > > > > Also if this was useful there's no real reason that raw_weighted_load > > couldn't be made available on non SMP systems as well as SMP ones. > > That does seem reasonable, but I'm looking at total system load, not per > runqueue. So a global_weighted_load() function would be required to return > that. Because despite what anyone seems to want to believe, reading from > disk hurts. Why it hurts so much I'm not really sure, but it's not a SCSI > vs IDE with or without DMA issue. It's not about tweaking parameters. It > doesn't seem to be only about cpu cycles. This is not a mistuned system > that it happens on. It just plain hurts if we do lots of disk i/o, perhaps > it's saturating the bus or something. Whatever it is, as much as I'd _like_ > swap prefetch to just keep working quietly at ultra ultra low priority, the > disk reads that swap prefetch does are not innocuous so I really do want > them to only be done when nothing else wants cpu. Wouldn't the change break prefetching if I have 98% CPU time free and not 100%? Something like an audio player in the background? It seems that any Seti@home type of calculation would kill it. In reality, we don't want disk reads when something interactive is running, so maybe you'd look at the nice level of the task? (higher than x = don't count it?) -- GPG Key id: 0xD1F10BA2 Fingerprint: 96E2 304A B9C4 949A 10A0 9105 9543 0453 D1F1 0BA2 AstralStorm
Attachment:
pgpQVhpMqlFTF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ck] Re: [PATCH] mm: Implement swap prefetching tweaks
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- Re: [ck] Re: [PATCH] mm: Implement swap prefetching tweaks
- References:
- [PATCH] mm: Implement swap prefetching tweaks
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] mm: Implement swap prefetching tweaks
- From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] mm: Implement swap prefetching tweaks
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] mm: Implement swap prefetching tweaks
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch][rfc] nommu: reverse mappings for nommu to solve get_user_pages problem
- Next by Date: [PATCH] Input: psmouse - disable autoresync
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] mm: Implement swap prefetching tweaks
- Next by thread: Re: [ck] Re: [PATCH] mm: Implement swap prefetching tweaks
- Index(es):
 |