linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3 v2] mm: Batch page reclamation under shink_page

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:44:42 -0700
From:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v2] mm: Batch page reclamation under shink_page_list

On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 12:27 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

> 
> That sounds good, although more details on the performance changes
> would be appreciated - after all, that's the entire point of the
> patchset.
> 
> And we shouldn't only test for improvements - we should also test for
> degradation.  What workloads might be harmed by this change?  I'd suggest
> 
> - a single process which opens N files and reads one page from each
>   one, then repeats.  So there are no contiguous LRU pages which share
>   the same ->mapping.  Get some page reclaim happening, measure the
>   impact.
> 
> - The batching means that we now do multiple passes over pageframes
>   where we used to do things in a single pass.  Walking all those new
>   page lists will be expensive if they are lengthy enough to cause L1
>   cache evictions.

I need to address both your concerns and Mel's concerns about the
downside of prolonging the holding page locks for the pages to be
unmmaped for patch 1 in the series.  I'll try to do some testing to see
what kind of benefit I get by only batching operations under the
i_mmap_mutex (i.e. patch 2 and 3 only) and not do batch unmap. Those
other changes don't have the downsides of prolonged page locking and we
can incorporate them with less risks.

> 
>   What would be a test for this?  A simple, single-threaded walk
>   through a file, I guess?

Thanks for your test suggestions.  I will do tests along your
suggestions when I generate the next iterations of the patch. 

I've been playing with these patches for a while and they are based on
3.4 kernel.  I'll move them to 3.6 kernel in my next iteration.

> 
> Mel's review comments were useful, thanks.

Very much appreciate comments from you, Mel and Minchan. I'll try to
incorporate them in my changes. 

Tim

--
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/