| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 08:40:37 -0700
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
"Vladimir Davydov" <vdavydov@...tuozzo.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Bob Peterson <rpeterso@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [xfs] 68a9f5e700: aim7.jobs-per-min -13.6% regression
Hi, Mel,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 04:49:07PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> > Yes, we could try to batch the locking like DaveC already suggested
>> > (ie we could move the locking to the caller, and then make
>> > shrink_page_list() just try to keep the lock held for a few pages if
>> > the mapping doesn't change), and that might result in fewer crazy
>> > cacheline ping-pongs overall. But that feels like exactly the wrong
>> > kind of workaround.
>> >
>>
>> Even if such batching was implemented, it would be very specific to the
>> case of a single large file filling LRUs on multiple nodes.
>>
>
> The latest Jason Bourne movie was sufficiently bad that I spent time
> thinking how the tree_lock could be batched during reclaim. It's not
> straight-forward but this prototype did not blow up on UMA and may be
> worth considering if Dave can test either approach has a positive impact.
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 374d95d04178..926110219cd9 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -621,19 +621,39 @@ static pageout_t pageout(struct page *page, struct address_space *mapping,
> return PAGE_CLEAN;
> }
We found this patch helps much for swap out performance, where there are
usually only one mapping for all swap pages. In our 16 processes
sequential swap write test case for a ramdisk on a Xeon E5 v3 machine,
the swap out throughput improved 40.4%, from ~0.97GB/s to ~1.36GB/s.
What's your plan for this patch? If it can be merged soon, that will be
great!
I found some issues in the original patch to work with swap cache. Below
is my fixes to make it work for swap cache.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
-------------------------------------------------------------------->
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index ac5fbff..dcaf295 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -623,22 +623,28 @@ static pageout_t pageout(struct page *page, struct address_space *mapping,
static void finalise_remove_mapping(struct list_head *swapcache,
struct list_head *filecache,
+ struct list_head *free_pages,
void (*freepage)(struct page *))
{
struct page *page;
while (!list_empty(swapcache)) {
- swp_entry_t swap = { .val = page_private(page) };
+ swp_entry_t swap;
page = lru_to_page(swapcache);
list_del(&page->lru);
+ swap.val = page_private(page);
swapcache_free(swap);
set_page_private(page, 0);
+ if (free_pages)
+ list_add(&page->lru, free_pages);
}
while (!list_empty(filecache)) {
- page = lru_to_page(swapcache);
+ page = lru_to_page(filecache);
list_del(&page->lru);
freepage(page);
+ if (free_pages)
+ list_add(&page->lru, free_pages);
}
}
@@ -649,7 +655,8 @@ static void finalise_remove_mapping(struct list_head *swapcache,
static int __remove_mapping_page(struct address_space *mapping,
struct page *page, bool reclaimed,
struct list_head *swapcache,
- struct list_head *filecache)
+ struct list_head *filecache,
+ struct list_head *free_pages)
{
BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
BUG_ON(mapping != page_mapping(page));
@@ -722,6 +729,8 @@ static int __remove_mapping_page(struct address_space *mapping,
__delete_from_page_cache(page, shadow);
if (freepage)
list_add(&page->lru, filecache);
+ else if (free_pages)
+ list_add(&page->lru, free_pages);
}
return 1;
@@ -747,7 +756,7 @@ int remove_mapping(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page)
spin_lock_irqsave(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
freepage = mapping->a_ops->freepage;
- if (__remove_mapping_page(mapping, page, false, &swapcache, &filecache)) {
+ if (__remove_mapping_page(mapping, page, false, &swapcache, &filecache, NULL)) {
/*
* Unfreezing the refcount with 1 rather than 2 effectively
* drops the pagecache ref for us without requiring another
@@ -757,7 +766,7 @@ int remove_mapping(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page)
ret = 1;
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
- finalise_remove_mapping(&swapcache, &filecache, freepage);
+ finalise_remove_mapping(&swapcache, &filecache, NULL, freepage);
return ret;
}
@@ -776,29 +785,28 @@ static void remove_mapping_list(struct list_head *mapping_list,
page = lru_to_page(mapping_list);
list_del(&page->lru);
- if (!mapping || page->mapping != mapping) {
+ if (!mapping || page_mapping(page) != mapping) {
if (mapping) {
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
- finalise_remove_mapping(&swapcache, &filecache, freepage);
+ finalise_remove_mapping(&swapcache, &filecache, free_pages, freepage);
}
- mapping = page->mapping;
+ mapping = page_mapping(page);
spin_lock_irqsave(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
freepage = mapping->a_ops->freepage;
}
- if (!__remove_mapping_page(mapping, page, true, &swapcache, &filecache)) {
+ if (!__remove_mapping_page(mapping, page, true, &swapcache,
+ &filecache, free_pages)) {
unlock_page(page);
list_add(&page->lru, ret_pages);
- } else {
+ } else
__ClearPageLocked(page);
- list_add(&page->lru, free_pages);
- }
}
if (mapping) {
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mapping->tree_lock, flags);
- finalise_remove_mapping(&swapcache, &filecache, freepage);
+ finalise_remove_mapping(&swapcache, &filecache, free_pages, freepage);
}
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists