LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
To: Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@bull.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] Tunable structure and registration routines
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:34:24 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070125083424.7c455d94.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45B8DA37.5050502@bull.net>

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:26:31 +0100 Nadia Derbey wrote:

> Randy,
> 
> Thanks for reviewing the code!
> My comments embedded.
> I'll re-send the patches as soon as possible.

OK, thanks.


> Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 07:15:17 +0100 Nadia.Derbey@bull.net wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>[PATCH 01/06]
> >>
> <snip>
> > 
> > 
> >>+Any kernel subsystem that has registered a tunable should call
> >>+auto_tune_func() as follows:
> >>+
> >>++-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> >>+| Step                    | Routine to call                            |
> >>++-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> >>+| Declaration phase       | DEFINE_TUNABLE(name, values...);           |
> >>++-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> >>+| Initialization routine  | set_tunable_min_max(name, min, max);       |
> >>+|                         | set_autotuning_routine(name, routine);     |
> >>+|                         | register_tunable(&name);                   |
> >>+| Note: the 1st 2 calls   |                                            |
> >>+|       are optional      |                                            |
> >>++-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> >>+| Alloc                   | activate_auto_tuning(AKT_UP, &name);       |
> >>++-------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
> >>+| Free                    | activate_auto_tuning(AKT_DOWN, &name);     |
> > 
> > 
> > So does Free always use AKT_DOWN?  why does it matter?
> > Seems unneeded and inconsistent.
> 
> Tuning down is recommended in order to come back to the default tunable 
> value.

Let me try to be clearer.  What is Alloc?  and why is AKT_UP
associated with Alloc and AFK_DOWN associated with Free (whatever
that means)?


> I agree with you: today it has quite no effect, except on the tunable 
> value. If we take the ipc's example, grow_ary() just returns if the new 
> tunable value happens to be lower than the previous one.
> But we can imagine, in the future, that grow_ary could deallocate the 
> unused memory.
> + in that particular case, lowering the tunable value makes the 1st loop 
> in ipc_addid() shorter.
> 
> > How does one activate a tunable for downward adjustment?
> 
> Actually a tunable is activated to be dynamically adjusted (whatever the 
> direction).
> But you are giving me an idea for a future enhancement: we can imagine a 
> tunable that could be allowed to increase only (or decrease only). In 
> that case, we should move the autotune sysfs attribute into an 'up' and 
> a 'down' attribute?

Couldn't the tunable owner just adjust the min value to a new
(larger) min value, e.g.?


> >>+extern void fork_late_init(void);
> > 
> > 
> > Looks like the wrong header file for that extern.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Actually, I wanted the changes to the existing kernel files to be as 
> small as possible. That's why everything is concentrated, whenever 
> possible, in the added files.

I suppose that's OK for review, but it shouldn't be merged that way.

---
~Randy

  reply	other threads:[~2007-01-25 16:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-01-16  6:15 [RFC][PATCH 0/6] Automatice kernel tunables (AKT) Nadia.Derbey
2007-01-16  6:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/6] Tunable structure and registration routines Nadia.Derbey
2007-01-25  0:32   ` Randy Dunlap
2007-01-25 16:26     ` Nadia Derbey
2007-01-25 16:34       ` Randy Dunlap [this message]
2007-01-25 17:01         ` Nadia Derbey
2007-01-16  6:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/6] auto_tuning activation Nadia.Derbey
2007-01-16  6:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/6] tunables associated kobjects Nadia.Derbey
2007-01-16  6:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/6] min and max kobjects Nadia.Derbey
2007-01-24 22:41   ` Randy Dunlap
2007-01-25 16:34     ` Nadia Derbey
2007-01-16  6:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/6] per namespace tunables Nadia.Derbey
2007-01-24 22:41   ` Randy Dunlap
2007-01-16  6:15 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/6] automatic tuning applied to some kernel components Nadia.Derbey
2007-01-22 19:56   ` Andrew Morton
2007-01-23 14:40     ` Nadia Derbey
2007-02-07 21:18       ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-02-09 12:27         ` Nadia Derbey
2007-02-09 18:35           ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-02-13  9:06             ` Nadia Derbey
2007-02-13 10:10               ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-02-15  7:07                 ` Nadia Derbey
2007-02-15  7:49                   ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-02-15  8:25                     ` Nadia Derbey

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070125083424.7c455d94.randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
    --to=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
    --cc=Nadia.Derbey@bull.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] Tunable structure and registration routines' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).