lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [driver-core PATCH v6 2/9] async: Add support for queueing on specific NUMA node
From
Date
On 11/11/2018 12:35 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 11:53:20AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 11:32 AM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 10:06:50AM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>>> Introduce four new variants of the async_schedule_ functions that allow
>>>> scheduling on a specific NUMA node.
>>>>
>>>> The first two functions are async_schedule_near and
>>>> async_schedule_near_domain end up mapping to async_schedule and
>>>> async_schedule_domain, but provide NUMA node specific functionality. They
>>>> replace the original functions which were moved to inline function
>>>> definitions that call the new functions while passing NUMA_NO_NODE.
>>>>
>>>> The second two functions are async_schedule_dev and
>>>> async_schedule_dev_domain which provide NUMA specific functionality when
>>>> passing a device as the data member and that device has a NUMA node other
>>>> than NUMA_NO_NODE.
>>>>
>>>> The main motivation behind this is to address the need to be able to
>>>> schedule device specific init work on specific NUMA nodes in order to
>>>> improve performance of memory initialization.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> No one else from Intel has reviewed/verified this code at all?
>>>
>>> Please take advantages of the resources you have that most people do
>>> not, get reviewes from your coworkers please before you send this out
>>> again, as they can give you valuable help before the community has to
>>> review the code...
>>
>> I tend to be suspicious of code that arrives on the mailing list
>> day-one with a series of company-internal reviewed-by tags. Sometimes
>> there is preliminary work that can be done internally, but I think we
>> should prefer to do review in the open as much as possible where it
>> does not waste community time. Alex and I did reach a general internal
>> consensus to send this out and get community feedback, but I assumed
>> to do the bulk of the review in parallel with everyone else. That said
>> I think it's fine to ask for some other acks before you take a look,
>> but let's do that in the open.
>
> Doing it in the open is great, see my response to Pavel for the history
> of why I am normally suspicious of this, and why I wrote the above.
>
> Also this patchset has had a long history of me asking for things, and
> not seeing the changes happen (hint, where are the benchmark numbers I
> asked for a long time ago?) Touching the driver core like this is
> tricky, and without others helping in review and test, it makes me
> suspicious that it is not happening.
>
> This would be a great time for some other people to do that review :)
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

Is there any specific benchmark test you were wanting me to run? As far
as crude numbers this patch set started out specifically focused on
patch 9/9, but I thought it best to apply it more generically as I found
we could still run into the issue if we enabled async_probe.

What I have seen on several systems is a pretty significant improvement
in initialization time for persistent memory. In the case of 3TB of
memory being initialized on a single node the improvement in the worst
case was from about 36s down to 26s for total initialization time.

I plan to resubmit this set after plumber's since there were a few typos
and bits of comment left over in a patch description that needed to be
sorted out. I will try to make certain to have any benchmark data I have
included with the set the next time I put it out.

Thanks.

- Alex

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-12 00:55    [W:0.090 / U:4.604 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site