Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:25:09 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Provide control over unmapped pages

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:46:31 +0530
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Provide control using zone_reclaim() and a boot parameter. The
> code reuses functionality from zone_reclaim() to isolate unmapped
> pages and reclaim them as a priority, ahead of other mapped pages.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/swap.h |    5 ++-
>  mm/page_alloc.c      |    7 +++--
>  mm/vmscan.c          |   72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
> index eba53e7..78b0830 100644
> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
> @@ -252,11 +252,12 @@ extern int vm_swappiness;
>  extern int remove_mapping(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page);
>  extern long vm_total_pages;
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> -extern int zone_reclaim_mode;
>  extern int sysctl_min_unmapped_ratio;
>  extern int sysctl_min_slab_ratio;

This change will need to be moved into the first patch.

>  extern int zone_reclaim(struct zone *, gfp_t, unsigned int);
> +extern bool should_balance_unmapped_pages(struct zone *zone);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> +extern int zone_reclaim_mode;
>  #else
>  #define zone_reclaim_mode 0
>  static inline int zone_reclaim(struct zone *z, gfp_t mask, unsigned int order)
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 62b7280..4228da3 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1662,6 +1662,9 @@ zonelist_scan:
>  			unsigned long mark;
>  			int ret;
>  
> +			if (should_balance_unmapped_pages(zone))
> +				wakeup_kswapd(zone, order);

gack, this is on the page allocator fastpath, isn't it?  So
99.99999999% of the world's machines end up doing a pointless call to a
pointless function which pointlessly tests a pointless global and
pointlessly returns?  All because of some whacky KSM thing?

The speed and space overhead of this code should be *zero* if
!CONFIG_UNMAPPED_PAGECACHE_CONTROL and should be minimal if
CONFIG_UNMAPPED_PAGECACHE_CONTROL=y.  The way to do the latter is to
inline the test of unmapped_page_control into callers and only if it is
true (and use unlikely(), please) do we call into the KSM gunk.

> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -145,6 +145,21 @@ static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem);
>  #define scanning_global_lru(sc)	(1)
>  #endif
>  
> +static unsigned long balance_unmapped_pages(int priority, struct zone *zone,
> +						struct scan_control *sc);
> +static int unmapped_page_control __read_mostly;
> +
> +static int __init unmapped_page_control_parm(char *str)
> +{
> +	unmapped_page_control = 1;
> +	/*
> +	 * XXX: Should we tweak swappiness here?
> +	 */
> +	return 1;
> +}
> +__setup("unmapped_page_control", unmapped_page_control_parm);

aw c'mon guys, everybody knows that when you add a kernel parameter you
document it in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt.

>  static struct zone_reclaim_stat *get_reclaim_stat(struct zone *zone,
>  						  struct scan_control *sc)
>  {
> @@ -2223,6 +2238,12 @@ loop_again:
>  				shrink_active_list(SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, zone,
>  							&sc, priority, 0);
>  
> +			/*
> +			 * We do unmapped page balancing once here and once
> +			 * below, so that we don't lose out
> +			 */
> +			balance_unmapped_pages(priority, zone, &sc);
> +
>  			if (!zone_watermark_ok_safe(zone, order,
>  					high_wmark_pages(zone), 0, 0)) {
>  				end_zone = i;
> @@ -2258,6 +2279,11 @@ loop_again:
>  				continue;
>  
>  			sc.nr_scanned = 0;
> +			/*
> +			 * Balance unmapped pages upfront, this should be
> +			 * really cheap
> +			 */
> +			balance_unmapped_pages(priority, zone, &sc);

More unjustifiable overhead on a commonly-executed codepath.

>  			/*
>  			 * Call soft limit reclaim before calling shrink_zone.
> @@ -2491,7 +2517,8 @@ void wakeup_kswapd(struct zone *zone, int order)
>  		pgdat->kswapd_max_order = order;
>  	if (!waitqueue_active(&pgdat->kswapd_wait))
>  		return;
> -	if (zone_watermark_ok_safe(zone, order, low_wmark_pages(zone), 0, 0))
> +	if (zone_watermark_ok_safe(zone, order, low_wmark_pages(zone), 0, 0) &&
> +		!should_balance_unmapped_pages(zone))
>  		return;
>  
>  	trace_mm_vmscan_wakeup_kswapd(pgdat->node_id, zone_idx(zone), order);
> @@ -2740,6 +2767,49 @@ zone_reclaim_unmapped_pages(struct zone *zone, struct scan_control *sc,
>  }
>  
>  /*
> + * Routine to balance unmapped pages, inspired from the code under
> + * CONFIG_NUMA that does unmapped page and slab page control by keeping
> + * min_unmapped_pages in the zone. We currently reclaim just unmapped
> + * pages, slab control will come in soon, at which point this routine
> + * should be called balance cached pages
> + */

The problem I have with this comment is that it uses the term "balance"
without ever defining it.  Plus "balance" is already a term which is used
in memory reclaim.

So if you can think up a unique noun then that's good but whether or
not that is done, please describe with great care what that term
actually means in this context.

> +static unsigned long balance_unmapped_pages(int priority, struct zone *zone,
> +						struct scan_control *sc)
> +{
> +	if (unmapped_page_control &&
> +		(zone_unmapped_file_pages(zone) > zone->min_unmapped_pages)) {
> +		struct scan_control nsc;
> +		unsigned long nr_pages;
> +
> +		nsc = *sc;
> +
> +		nsc.swappiness = 0;
> +		nsc.may_writepage = 0;
> +		nsc.may_unmap = 0;
> +		nsc.nr_reclaimed = 0;

Doing a clone-and-own of a scan_control is novel.  What's going on here?

> +		nr_pages = zone_unmapped_file_pages(zone) -
> +				zone->min_unmapped_pages;
> +		/* Magically try to reclaim eighth the unmapped cache pages */
> +		nr_pages >>= 3;
> +
> +		zone_reclaim_unmapped_pages(zone, &nsc, nr_pages);
> +		return nsc.nr_reclaimed;
> +	}
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +#define UNMAPPED_PAGE_RATIO 16

Well.  Giving 16 a name didn't really clarify anything.  Attentive
readers will want to know what this does, why 16 was chosen and what
the effects of changing it will be.

> +bool should_balance_unmapped_pages(struct zone *zone)
> +{
> +	if (unmapped_page_control &&
> +		(zone_unmapped_file_pages(zone) >
> +			UNMAPPED_PAGE_RATIO * zone->min_unmapped_pages))
> +		return true;
> +	return false;
> +}


> Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>

So you're OK with shoving all this flotsam into 100,000,000 cellphones? 
This was a pretty outrageous patchset!


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists