2017-05-16 21:04:34 +08:00
|
|
|
===============================
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
Numa policy hit/miss statistics
|
2017-05-16 21:04:34 +08:00
|
|
|
===============================
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/sys/devices/system/node/node*/numastat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All units are pages. Hugepages have separate counters.
|
|
|
|
|
2020-05-07 20:02:17 +08:00
|
|
|
The numa_hit, numa_miss and numa_foreign counters reflect how well processes
|
|
|
|
are able to allocate memory from nodes they prefer. If they succeed, numa_hit
|
|
|
|
is incremented on the preferred node, otherwise numa_foreign is incremented on
|
|
|
|
the preferred node and numa_miss on the node where allocation succeeded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Usually preferred node is the one local to the CPU where the process executes,
|
|
|
|
but restrictions such as mempolicies can change that, so there are also two
|
|
|
|
counters based on CPU local node. local_node is similar to numa_hit and is
|
|
|
|
incremented on allocation from a node by CPU on the same node. other_node is
|
|
|
|
similar to numa_miss and is incremented on the node where allocation succeeds
|
|
|
|
from a CPU from a different node. Note there is no counter analogical to
|
|
|
|
numa_foreign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In more detail:
|
|
|
|
|
2017-05-16 21:04:34 +08:00
|
|
|
=============== ============================================================
|
2012-02-25 10:12:23 +08:00
|
|
|
numa_hit A process wanted to allocate memory from this node,
|
|
|
|
and succeeded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
numa_miss A process wanted to allocate memory from another node,
|
|
|
|
but ended up with memory from this node.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
numa_foreign A process wanted to allocate on this node,
|
2020-05-07 20:02:17 +08:00
|
|
|
but ended up with memory from another node.
|
2012-02-25 10:12:23 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-05-07 20:02:17 +08:00
|
|
|
local_node A process ran on this node's CPU,
|
|
|
|
and got memory from this node.
|
2012-02-25 10:12:23 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2020-05-07 20:02:17 +08:00
|
|
|
other_node A process ran on a different node's CPU
|
|
|
|
and got memory from this node.
|
2012-02-25 10:12:23 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
interleave_hit Interleaving wanted to allocate from this node
|
|
|
|
and succeeded.
|
2017-05-16 21:04:34 +08:00
|
|
|
=============== ============================================================
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For easier reading you can use the numastat utility from the numactl package
|
2012-02-25 10:12:23 +08:00
|
|
|
(http://oss.sgi.com/projects/libnuma/). Note that it only works
|
2005-04-17 06:20:36 +08:00
|
|
|
well right now on machines with a small number of CPUs.
|
|
|
|
|
2020-05-07 20:02:17 +08:00
|
|
|
Note that on systems with memoryless nodes (where a node has CPUs but no
|
|
|
|
memory) the numa_hit, numa_miss and numa_foreign statistics can be skewed
|
|
|
|
heavily. In the current kernel implementation, if a process prefers a
|
|
|
|
memoryless node (i.e. because it is running on one of its local CPU), the
|
|
|
|
implementation actually treats one of the nearest nodes with memory as the
|
|
|
|
preferred node. As a result, such allocation will not increase the numa_foreign
|
|
|
|
counter on the memoryless node, and will skew the numa_hit, numa_miss and
|
|
|
|
numa_foreign statistics of the nearest node.
|