[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/6] the big khugepaged redesign
On 03/05/2015 05:52 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2015-03-05 17:30:16 +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> That however means the workload is based on hugetlbfs and shouldn't trigger THP
>> page fault activity, which is the aim of this patchset. Some more googling made
>> me recall that last LSF/MM, postgresql people mentioned THP issues and pointed
>> at compaction. See That's exactly where this
>> patchset should help, but I obviously won't be able to measure this before LSF/MM...
>> I'm CCing the psql guys from last year LSF/MM - do you have any insight about
>> psql performance with THPs enabled/disabled on recent kernels, where e.g.
>> compaction is no longer synchronous for THP page faults?
> What exactly counts as "recent" in this context? Most of the bigger
> installations where we found THP to be absolutely prohibitive (slowdowns
> on the order of a magnitude, huge latency spikes) unfortunately run
> quite old kernels... I guess 3.11 does *not* count :/? That'd be a

Yeah that's too old :/ 3.17 has patches to make compaction less aggressive on
THP page faults, and 3.18 prevents khugepaged from holding mmap_sem during
compaction, which could be also relevant.

> bigger machine where I could relatively quickly reenable THP to check
> whether it's still bad. I might be able to trigger it to be rebooted
> onto a newer kernel, will ask.

Thanks, that would be great, if you could do that.
I also noticed that you now support hugetlbfs. That could be also interesting
data point, if the hugetlbfs usage helped because THP code wouldn't trigger.


> Greetings,
> Andres Freund

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-05 18:21    [W:0.080 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site