[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090326000100.GA5404@cmpxchg.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:01:00 +0100
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
MinChan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] mm: keep pages from unevictable mappings off the LRU lists
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:53:27AM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org> wrote:
>
> > - if (page_is_file_cache(page))
> > + if (mapping_unevictable(mapping))
> > + add_page_to_unevictable_list(page);
> > + else if (page_is_file_cache(page))
>
> It would be nice to avoid adding an extra test and branch in here. This
> function is used a lot, and quite often we know the answer to the first test
> before we even get here.
Yes, I thought about that too. So I mounted a tmpfs and dd'd
/dev/zero to a file on it until it ran out of space (around 900M,
without swapping), deleted the file again. I did this in a tight loop
and profiled it.
I couldn't think of a way that would excercise add_to_page_cache_lru()
more, I hope I didn't overlook anything, please correct if I am wrong.
If I was not, than the extra checking for unevictable mappings doesn't
make a measurable difference. The function on the vanilla kernel had
a share of 0.2033%, on the patched kernel 0.1953%.
Hannes
--
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