On 2/3/21 12:10 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:04:01PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Yes, but it's tricky to do the retuning safely, e.g. if freelist
>> randomization
>> is enabled, see [1].
>>
>> But as a quick fix for the regression, the heuristic idea could work
>> r
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > So what is preferrable here now? Above or other quick fix or reverting
> > the original commit?
>
> I'm fine with whatever the solution as long as we can use keep using
> nr_cpu_ids when other values like num_present_cpus, don't reflect
> correctly th
On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 12:10, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:04:01PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 1/27/21 10:10 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Will Deacon wrote:
> > >
> > >> > Hm, but booting the secondaries is just a software (kernel) action?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 12:04:01PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 1/27/21 10:10 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Will Deacon wrote:
> >
> >> > Hm, but booting the secondaries is just a software (kernel) action? They
> >> > are
> >> > already physically there, so it seems
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 02:57:10PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 28-01-21 13:45:12, Mel Gorman wrote:
> [...]
> > So mostly this is down to the number of times SLUB calls into the page
> > allocator which only caches order-0 pages on a per-cpu basis. I do have
> > a prototype for a high-order
On Thu 28-01-21 13:45:12, Mel Gorman wrote:
[...]
> So mostly this is down to the number of times SLUB calls into the page
> allocator which only caches order-0 pages on a per-cpu basis. I do have
> a prototype for a high-order per-cpu allocator but it is very rough --
> high watermarks stop making
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 02:59:18PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > This thread shows that this is still somehow related to performance but
> > > the real reason is not clear. I believe we should be focusing on the
> > > actual reasons for the performance impact than playing with some fancy
> > > m
On 1/26/21 2:59 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>
>> On 8 CPUs, I run hackbench with up to 16 groups which means 16*40
>> threads. But I raise up to 256 groups, which means 256*40 threads, on
>> the 224 CPUs system. In fact, hackbench -g 1 (with 1 group) doesn't
>> regress on the 224 CPUs system. The n
On 1/27/21 10:10 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Will Deacon wrote:
>
>> > Hm, but booting the secondaries is just a software (kernel) action? They
>> > are
>> > already physically there, so it seems to me as if the cpu_present_mask is
>> > not
>> > populated correctly on arm
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 12:20:14PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 1/23/21 1:32 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> PowerPC PowerNV Host: (160 cpus)
> >> num_online_cpus 1 num_present_cpus 160 num_possible_cpus 160 nr_cpu_ids 160
> >>
> >> PowerPC pseries KVM guest: (-smp 16,maxcpus=160)
> >> num_on
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hm, but booting the secondaries is just a software (kernel) action? They are
> > already physically there, so it seems to me as if the cpu_present_mask is
> > not
> > populated correctly on arm64, and it's just a mirror of cpu_online_mask?
>
> I think t
On Tue 26-01-21 14:38:14, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 09:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Thu 21-01-21 19:19:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > [...]
> > > We could also start questioning the very assumption that number of cpus
> > > should
> > > affect slab page size in the fir
On Tue, 26 Jan 2021 at 09:52, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Thu 21-01-21 19:19:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> [...]
> > We could also start questioning the very assumption that number of cpus
> > should
> > affect slab page size in the first place. Should it? After all, each CPU
> > will
> > have one
On Thu 21-01-21 19:19:21, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
[...]
> We could also start questioning the very assumption that number of cpus should
> affect slab page size in the first place. Should it? After all, each CPU will
> have one or more slab pages privately cached, as we discuss in the other
> thread
On 1/23/21 1:32 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> PowerPC PowerNV Host: (160 cpus)
>> num_online_cpus 1 num_present_cpus 160 num_possible_cpus 160 nr_cpu_ids 160
>>
>> PowerPC pseries KVM guest: (-smp 16,maxcpus=160)
>> num_online_cpus 1 num_present_cpus 16 num_possible_cpus 160 nr_cpu_ids 160
>>
>> Th
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 02:05:47PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 7:19 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 1/21/21 11:01 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > >
> > >> > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
> >
+Adding arch arm64 Maintainers
On Sat, 23 Jan 2021 at 06:16, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 01:03:57PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 1/22/21 9:03 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 19:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 1/21/21 11:01 AM, Chri
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 01:03:57PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 1/22/21 9:03 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 19:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/21/21 11:01 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > The probl
On 1/22/21 2:05 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 7:19 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 1/21/21 11:01 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>> >
>> >> > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
>> >> > before secondaries CP
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 at 13:03, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> On 1/22/21 9:03 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 19:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/21/21 11:01 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > The problem is tha
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 2:05 PM Jann Horn wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 7:19 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 1/21/21 11:01 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > >
> > >> > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
> > >> > bef
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 7:19 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 1/21/21 11:01 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> >
> >> > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
> >> > before secondaries CPUs are booted and it returns 1 instead of 22
On 1/22/21 9:03 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 19:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>
>> On 1/21/21 11:01 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>> >
>> >> > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
>> >> > before seconda
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 19:19, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> On 1/21/21 11:01 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> >
> >> > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
> >> > before secondaries CPUs are booted and it returns 1 instead of 22
On 1/21/21 11:01 AM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>
>> > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
>> > before secondaries CPUs are booted and it returns 1 instead of 224.
>> > This makes the use of num_online_cpus() irrelevant for th
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 11:01, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>
> > > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
> > > before secondaries CPUs are booted and it returns 1 instead of 224.
> > > This makes the use of num_online_cpus() irr
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
> > before secondaries CPUs are booted and it returns 1 instead of 224.
> > This makes the use of num_online_cpus() irrelevant for those cases
> >
> > After adding in my command line "sl
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 06:31, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 06:36:31PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 09:28, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > >
> > > The page order of the slab that gets chosen for a given slab
> > > cache depends on the number of
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 06:36:31PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 09:28, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> >
> > The page order of the slab that gets chosen for a given slab
> > cache depends on the number of objects that can be fit in the
> > slab while meeting other require
Hi,
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 09:28, Bharata B Rao wrote:
>
> The page order of the slab that gets chosen for a given slab
> cache depends on the number of objects that can be fit in the
> slab while meeting other requirements. We start with a value
> of minimum objects based on nr_cpu_ids that is d
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:25:38PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 11/18/20 9:27 AM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > > The page order of the slab that gets chosen for a given slab
> > > cache depends on the number of objects that can be fit in the
> > > s
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:25:38PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/18/20 9:27 AM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > The page order of the slab that gets chosen for a given slab
> > cache depends on the number of objects that can be fit in the
> > slab while meeting other requirements. We start with a
On 11/18/20 9:27 AM, Bharata B Rao wrote:
The page order of the slab that gets chosen for a given slab
cache depends on the number of objects that can be fit in the
slab while meeting other requirements. We start with a value
of minimum objects based on nr_cpu_ids that is driven by
possible numbe
The page order of the slab that gets chosen for a given slab
cache depends on the number of objects that can be fit in the
slab while meeting other requirements. We start with a value
of minimum objects based on nr_cpu_ids that is driven by
possible number of CPUs and hence could be higher than the
34 matches
Mail list logo
