[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100616164309.254b1a0d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:43:09 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] vmscan: Setup pagevec as late as possible in
shrink_inactive_list()
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:17:49 +0100
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> shrink_inactive_list() sets up a pagevec to release unfreeable pages. It
> uses significant amounts of stack doing this. This patch splits
> shrink_inactive_list() to take the stack usage out of the main path so
> that callers to writepage() do not contain an unused pagevec on the
> stack.
You can get the entire pagevec off the stack - just make it a
static-to-shrink_inactive_list() pagevec-per-cpu.
Locking just requires pinning to a CPU. We could trivially co-opt
shrink_inactive_list()'s spin_lock_irq() for that, but
pagevec_release() can be relatively expensive so it'd be sad to move
that inside spin_lock_irq(). It'd be better to slap a
get_cpu()/put_cpu() around the whole thing.
--
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