From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 2 18:12:38 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86B2A1065765; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 18:12:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0213C8FC21; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 18:12:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 990A346B95; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:12:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93C6F8A04F; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:12:35 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Alan Cox Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 09:42:29 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/7.3-CBSD-20100217; KDE/4.4.5; amd64; ; ) References: <4C4DB2B8.9080404@freebsd.org> <201007301614.40768.jhb@freebsd.org> <4C54981B.9080209@cs.rice.edu> In-Reply-To: <4C54981B.9080209@cs.rice.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201008020942.29654.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:12:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.1 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06 autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: alc@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: amd64: change VM_KMEM_SIZE_SCALE to 1? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:12:38 -0000 On Saturday, July 31, 2010 5:39:39 pm Alan Cox wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > On Friday, July 30, 2010 2:49:59 pm Alan Cox wrote: > >> With that in mind, the following patch slows the growth of "virt" from > >> 2/5 of vm_kmem_size to 1/7. This has no effect on amd64. However, on > >> i386. it allows desiredvnodes to grow slowly for machines with 1.5GB to > >> about 2.5GB of RAM, ultimately exceeding the old desiredvnodes cap by > >> about 17%. Once we exceed the old cap, we increase desiredvnodes at a > >> marginal rate that is almost the same as your patch, about 1% of > >> physical memory. It's just computed differently. > >> > >> Using 1/8 instead of 1/7, amd64 machines with less than about 1.5GB lose > >> about 7% of their vnodes, but they catch up and pass the old limit by > >> 1.625GB. Perhaps, more importantly, i386 machines only exceed the old > >> cap by 3%. > >> > >> Thoughts? > > > > I think this is much better. My strawman was rather hackish in that it was > > layering a hack on top of the existing calculations. I prefer your approach. > > I do not think penalizing amd64 machines with less than 1.5GB is a big worry > > as most x86 machines with a small amount of memory are probably running as > > i386 anyway. Given that, I would probably lean towards 1/8 instead of 1/7, > > but I would be happy with either one. > > I've looked a bit at an i386/PAE system with 8GB. I don't think that a > default configuration, e.g., no changes to the mbuf limits, is at risk > with 1/7. Ok. > > How is this value computed? I would prefer something like: > > > > '512 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024 / (sizeof(struct vnode) + sizeof(struct vm_object) / N' > > > > if that is how it is computed. A brief note about the magic number of 393216 > > would also be nice to have (and if it could be a constant with a similar > > formula value that would be nice, too.). > > > > > > I've tried to explain this computation below. Thanks, it looks good to me now. > Index: kern/vfs_subr.c > =================================================================== > --- kern/vfs_subr.c (revision 210702) > +++ kern/vfs_subr.c (working copy) > @@ -282,23 +282,34 @@ SYSCTL_INT(_debug, OID_AUTO, vnlru_nowhere, CTLFLA > > /* > * Initialize the vnode management data structures. > + * > + * Reevaluate the following cap on the number of vnodes after the physical > + * memory size exceeds 512GB. In the limit, as the physical memory size > + * grows, the ratio of physical pages to vnodes approaches sixteen to one. > */ > #ifndef MAXVNODES_MAX > -#define MAXVNODES_MAX 100000 > +#define MAXVNODES_MAX (512 * (1024 * 1024 * 1024 / PAGE_SIZE / > 16)) > #endif > static void > vntblinit(void *dummy __unused) > { > + int physvnodes, virtvnodes; > > /* > - * Desiredvnodes is a function of the physical memory size and > - * the kernel's heap size. Specifically, desiredvnodes scales > - * in proportion to the physical memory size until two fifths > - * of the kernel's heap size is consumed by vnodes and vm > - * objects. > + * Desiredvnodes is a function of the physical memory size and the > + * kernel's heap size. Generally speaking, it scales with the > + * physical memory size. The ratio of desiredvnodes to physical > pages > + * is one to four until desiredvnodes exceeds 98,304. > Thereafter, the > + * marginal ratio of desiredvnodes to physical pages is one to > + * sixteen. However, desiredvnodes is limited by the kernel's heap > + * size. The memory required by desiredvnodes vnodes and vm objects > + * may not exceed one seventh of the kernel's heap size. > */ > - desiredvnodes = min(maxproc + cnt.v_page_count / 4, 2 * > vm_kmem_size / > - (5 * (sizeof(struct vm_object) + sizeof(struct vnode)))); > + physvnodes = maxproc + cnt.v_page_count / 16 + 3 * min(98304 * 4, > + cnt.v_page_count) / 16; > + virtvnodes = vm_kmem_size / (7 * (sizeof(struct vm_object) + > + sizeof(struct vnode))); > + desiredvnodes = min(physvnodes, virtvnodes); > if (desiredvnodes > MAXVNODES_MAX) { > if (bootverbose) > printf("Reducing kern.maxvnodes %d -> %d\n", > > -- John Baldwin