lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] delayacct: track delays from ksm cow
From
On 17.03.22 10:48, CGEL wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 09:17:13AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 17.03.22 03:03, CGEL wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 03:56:23PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 16.03.22 14:34, cgel.zte@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Yang Yang <yang.yang29@zte.com.cn>
>>>>>
>>>>> Delay accounting does not track the delay of ksm cow. When tasks
>>>>> have many ksm pages, it may spend a amount of time waiting for ksm
>>>>> cow.
>>>>>
>>>>> To get the impact of tasks in ksm cow, measure the delay when ksm
>>>>> cow happens. This could help users to decide whether to user ksm
>>>>> or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also update tools/accounting/getdelays.c:
>>>>>
>>>>> / # ./getdelays -dl -p 231
>>>>> print delayacct stats ON
>>>>> listen forever
>>>>> PID 231
>>>>>
>>>>> CPU count real total virtual total delay total delay average
>>>>> 6247 1859000000 2154070021 1674255063 0.268ms
>>>>> IO count delay total delay average
>>>>> 0 0 0ms
>>>>> SWAP count delay total delay average
>>>>> 0 0 0ms
>>>>> RECLAIM count delay total delay average
>>>>> 0 0 0ms
>>>>> THRASHING count delay total delay average
>>>>> 0 0 0ms
>>>>> KSM count delay total delay average
>>>>> 3635 271567604 0ms
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TBH I'm not sure how particularly helpful this is and if we want this.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for replying.
>>>
>>> Users may use ksm by calling madvise(, , MADV_MERGEABLE) when they want
>>> save memory, it's a tradeoff by suffering delay on ksm cow. Users can
>>> get to know how much memory ksm saved by reading
>>> /sys/kernel/mm/ksm/pages_sharing, but they don't know what the costs of
>>> ksm cow delay, and this is important of some delay sensitive tasks. If
>>> users know both saved memory and ksm cow delay, they could better use
>>> madvise(, , MADV_MERGEABLE).
>>
>> But that happens after the effects, no?
>>
>> IOW a user already called madvise(, , MADV_MERGEABLE) and then gets the
>> results.
>>
> Image user are developing or porting their applications on experiment
> machine, they could takes those benchmark as feedback to adjust whether
> to use madvise(, , MADV_MERGEABLE) or it's range.

And why can't they run it with and without and observe performance using
existing metrics (or even application-specific metrics?)?


--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-17 11:06    [W:0.359 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site