lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] swap: choose swap device according to numa node
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 13:49:45 +0800 Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 04:33:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:31:30 +0800 Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/vm/swap_numa.txt
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> > > +If the system has more than one swap device and swap device has the node
> > > +information, we can make use of this information to decide which swap
> > > +device to use in get_swap_pages() to get better performance.
> > > +
> > > +The current code uses a priority based list, swap_avail_list, to decide
> > > +which swap device to use and if multiple swap devices share the same
> > > +priority, they are used round robin. This change here replaces the single
> > > +global swap_avail_list with a per-numa-node list, i.e. for each numa node,
> > > +it sees its own priority based list of available swap devices. Swap
> > > +device's priority can be promoted on its matching node's swap_avail_list.
> > > +
> > > +The current swap device's priority is set as: user can set a >=0 value,
> > > +or the system will pick one starting from -1 then downwards. The priority
> > > +value in the swap_avail_list is the negated value of the swap device's
> > > +due to plist being sorted from low to high. The new policy doesn't change
> > > +the semantics for priority >=0 cases, the previous starting from -1 then
> > > +downwards now becomes starting from -2 then downwards and -1 is reserved
> > > +as the promoted value.
> >
> > Could we please add a little "user guide" here? Tell people how to set
> > up their system to exploit this? Sample /etc/fstab entries, perhaps?
>
> That's a good idea.
>
> How about this:
>
> ...
>

Looks good. Please send it along as a patch some time?

>
> I'm not sure what to do...any hint?
> Adding a pr_err() perhaps?

pr_emerg(), probably. Would it make sense to disable all swapon()s
after this?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-16 00:10    [W:0.066 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site