[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090602233457.GY1065@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 01:34:57 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch][v2] swap: virtual swap readahead
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 12:37:39AM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> + *
> + * Caller must hold down_read on the vma->vm_mm if vma is not NULL.
> + */
> +struct page *swapin_readahead(swp_entry_t entry, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr)
> +{
> + unsigned long start, pos, end;
> + unsigned long pmin, pmax;
> + int cluster, window;
> +
> + if (!vma || !vma->vm_mm) /* XXX: shmem case */
> + return swapin_readahead_phys(entry, gfp_mask, vma, addr);
> +
> + cluster = 1 << page_cluster;
> + window = cluster << PAGE_SHIFT;
> +
> + /* Physical range to read from */
> + pmin = swp_offset(entry) & ~(cluster - 1);
Is cluster really properly sign extended on 64bit? Looks a little
dubious. long from the start would be safer
> +
> + /* Virtual range to read from */
> + start = addr & ~(window - 1);
Same.
> + pgd = pgd_offset(vma->vm_mm, pos);
> + if (!pgd_present(*pgd))
> + continue;
> + pud = pud_offset(pgd, pos);
> + if (!pud_present(*pud))
> + continue;
> + pmd = pmd_offset(pud, pos);
> + if (!pmd_present(*pmd))
> + continue;
> + pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, pos, &ptl);
You could be more efficient here by using the standard mm/* nested loop
pattern that avoids relookup of everything in each iteration. I suppose
it would mainly make a difference with 32bit highpte where mapping a pte
can be somewhat costly. And you would take less locks this way.
> + page = read_swap_cache_async(swp, gfp_mask, vma, pos);
> + if (!page)
> + continue;
That's out of memory, break would be better here because prefetch
while oom is usually harmful.
> + page_cache_release(page);
> + }
> + lru_add_drain(); /* Push any new pages onto the LRU now */
> + return read_swap_cache_async(entry, gfp_mask, vma, addr);
Shouldn't that page be already handled in the loop earlier? Why doing that
again? It would be better to remember it from there.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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