Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 4 Sep 2010 18:14:14 +1000 | From | Dave Chinner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: page allocator: Drain per-cpu lists after direct reclaim allocation fails |
| |
On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 05:58:40PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 08:21:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 12:25:45 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote: > > > > > Still, given the improvements in performance from this patchset, > > > I'd say inclusion is a no-braniner.... > > > > OK, thanks. > > > > It'd be interesting to check the IPI frequency with and without - > > /proc/interrupts "CAL" field. Presumably it went down a lot. > > Maybe I suspected you would ask for this. I happened to dump > /proc/interrupts after the livelock run finished, so you're in > luck :) .... > > livelock: 59458 58367 58559 59493 59614 57970 59060 58207 > > So the livelock case tends to indicate roughly 40,000 more IPI > interrupts per CPU occurred. The livelock occurred for close to 5 > minutes, so that's roughly 130 IPIs per second per CPU....
And just to confuse the issue further, I just had a livelock on a vanilla kernel that did *not* cause the CAL counts to increase. Hence it appears that the IPI storms are not the cause of the livelocks І'm triggering....
Cheers,
Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |