On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 20:21 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> This is a rebase of the two-zonelist patchset to 2.6.24-rc4-mm1 and some
> warnings cleared up. The warnings were not picked up before as they were
> introduced early in the set and cleared up by the end. This might have hurt
> bisecting so were worth fixing even if the end result was correct. Tests
> looked good, both numactltest (slightly modified) and performance tests.
>
> I believe Lee has been testing heavily with a version of the patchset
> almost identical to this and hasn't complained. If Lee is happy enough,
> can you merge these to -mm for wider testing please Andrew?
Mel, Andrew:
Yes, I have been testing Mel's series quite heavily. I've been testing
them stand along and with my recently post Memory Policy series for
"correctness: of page placement. I've also rebased my shared policy and
automatic/lazy page migration patches along with Nick Piggin's pagecache
replication patch atop the twozonelist and mempolicy series and have
been doing some fairly heavy stress testing on an AMD x86_64 4 socket [4
node] dual core system. Mel's patches are holding up well.
Just this afternoon, I hit a null pointer deref in
__mem_cgroup_remove_list() [called from mem_cgroup_uncharge() if I can
trust the stack trace] attempting to unmap a page for migration. I'm
just starting to investigate this.
I'll replace the series I have [~V10] with V11r2 and continue testing in
anticipation of the day that we can get this into -mm.
Regards,
Lee
>
> Changelog since V10
> o Rebase to 2.6.24-rc4-mm1
> o Clear up warnings in fs/buffer.c early in the patchset
>
> Changelog since V9
> o Rebase to 2.6.24-rc2-mm1
> o Lookup the nodemask for each allocator callsite in mempolicy.c
> o Update NUMA statistics based on preferred zone, not first zonelist entry
> o When __GFP_THISNODE is specified with MPOL_BIND and the current node is
> not in the allowed nodemask, the first node in the mask will be used
> o Stick with using two zonelists instead of one because of excessive
> complexity with corner cases
>
> Changelog since V8
> o Rebase to 2.6.24-rc2
> o Added ack for the OOM changes
> o Behave correctly when GFP_THISNODE and a node ID are specified
> o Clear up warning over type of nodes_intersects() function
>
> Changelog since V7
> o Rebase to 2.6.23-rc8-mm2
>
> Changelog since V6
> o Fix build bug in relation to memory controller combined with one-zonelist
> o Use while() instead of a stupid looking for()
> o Instead of encoding zone index information in a pointer, this version
> introduces a structure that stores a zone pointer and its index
>
> Changelog since V5
> o Rebase to 2.6.23-rc4-mm1
> o Drop patch that replaces inline functions with macros
>
> Changelog since V4
> o Rebase to -mm kernel. Host of memoryless patches collisions dealt with
> o Do not call wakeup_kswapd() for every zone in a zonelist
> o Dropped the FASTCALL removal
> o Have cursor in iterator advance earlier
> o Use nodes_and in cpuset_nodes_valid_mems_allowed()
> o Use defines instead of inlines, noticably better performance on gcc-3.4
> No difference on later compilers such as gcc 4.1
> o Dropped gfp_skip patch until it is proven to be of benefit. Tests are
> currently inconclusive but it definitly consumes at least one cache
> line
>
> Changelog since V3
> o Fix compile error in the parisc change
> o Calculate gfp_zone only once in __alloc_pages
> o Calculate classzone_idx properly in get_page_from_freelist
> o Alter check so that zone id embedded may still be used on UP
> o Use Kamezawa-sans suggestion for skipping zones in zonelist
> o Add __alloc_pages_nodemask() to filter zonelist based on a nodemask. This
> removes the need for MPOL_BIND to have a custom zonelist
> o Move zonelist iterators and helpers to mm.h
> o Change _zones from struct zone * to unsigned long
>
> Changelog since V2
> o shrink_zones() uses zonelist instead of zonelist->zones
> o hugetlb uses zonelist iterator
> o zone_idx information is embedded in zonelist pointers
> o replace NODE_DATA(nid)->node_zonelist with node_zonelist(nid)
>
> Changelog since V1
> o Break up the patch into 3 patches
> o Introduce iterators for zonelists
> o Performance regression test
>
> The following patches replace multiple zonelists per node with two zonelists
> that are filtered based on the GFP flags. The patches as a set fix a bug
> with regard to the use of MPOL_BIND and ZONE_MOVABLE. With this patchset,
> the MPOL_BIND will apply to the two highest zones when the highest zone
> is ZONE_MOVABLE. This should be considered as an alternative fix for the
> MPOL_BIND+ZONE_MOVABLE in 2.6.23 to the previously discussed hack that
> filters only custom zonelists.
>
> The first patch cleans up an inconsitency where direct reclaim uses
> zonelist->zones where other places use zonelist.
>
> The second patch introduces a helper function node_zonelist() for looking
> up the appropriate zonelist for a GFP mask which simplifies patches later
> in the set.
>
> The third patch replaces multiple zonelists with two zonelists that are
> filtered. The two zonelists are due to the fact that the memoryless patchset
> introduces a second set of zonelists for __GFP_THISNODE.
>
> The fourth patch introduces helper macros for retrieving the zone and node indices of entries in a zonelist.
>
> The final patch introduces filtering of the zonelists based on a nodemask. Two
> zonelists exist per node, one for normal allocations and one for __GFP_THISNODE.
>
> Performance results varied depending on the machine configuration. In real
> workloads the gain/loss will depend on how much the userspace portion of
> the benchmark benefits from having more cache available due to reduced
> referencing of zonelists.
>
> These are the range of performance losses/gains when running against
> 2.6.24-rc4-mm1. The set and these machines are a mix of i386, x86_64 and
> ppc64 both NUMA and non-NUMA.
>
> loss to gain
> Total CPU time on Kernbench: -0.86% to 1.13%
> Elapsed time on Kernbench: -0.79% to 0.76%
> page_test from aim9: -4.37% to 0.79%
> brk_test from aim9: -0.71% to 4.07%
> fork_test from aim9: -1.84% to 4.60%
> exec_test from aim9: -0.71% to 1.08%
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
