[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101122143817.E242.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:16:55 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] deactive invalidated pages
> By Other approach, app developer uses POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED.
> But it has a problem. If kernel meets page is writing
> during invalidate_mapping_pages, it can't work.
> It is very hard for application programmer to use it.
> Because they always have to sync data before calling
> fadivse(..POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED) to make sure the pages could
> be discardable. At last, they can't use deferred write of kernel
> so that they could see performance loss.
> (http://insights.oetiker.ch/linux/fadvise.html)
If rsync use the above url patch, we don't need your patch.
fdatasync() + POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED should work fine.
So, I think the core worth of previous PeterZ's patch is in readahead
based heuristics. I'm curious why you drop it.
> In fact, invalidate is very big hint to reclaimer.
> It means we don't use the page any more. So let's move
> the writing page into inactive list's head.
But, I agree this.
>
> If it is real working set, it could have a enough time to
> activate the page since we always try to keep many pages in
> inactive list.
>
> I reuse lru_demote of Peter with some change.
>
> Reported-by: Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
>
> Ben, Remain thing is to modify rsync and use
> fadvise(POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED). Could you test it?
> ---
> include/linux/swap.h | 1 +
> mm/swap.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> mm/truncate.c | 11 +++++---
> 3 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
> index eba53e7..a3c9248 100644
> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
> @@ -213,6 +213,7 @@ extern void mark_page_accessed(struct page *);
> extern void lru_add_drain(void);
> extern int lru_add_drain_all(void);
> extern void rotate_reclaimable_page(struct page *page);
> +extern void lru_deactive_page(struct page *page);
> extern void swap_setup(void);
>
> extern void add_page_to_unevictable_list(struct page *page);
> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> index 3f48542..56fa298 100644
> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@ int page_cluster;
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pagevec[NR_LRU_LISTS], lru_add_pvecs);
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pagevec, lru_rotate_pvecs);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pagevec, lru_deactive_pvecs);
> +
>
> /*
> * This path almost never happens for VM activity - pages are normally
> @@ -266,6 +268,45 @@ void add_page_to_unevictable_list(struct page *page)
> spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> }
>
> +static void __pagevec_lru_deactive(struct pagevec *pvec)
> +{
> + int i, lru, file;
> +
> + struct zone *zone = NULL;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < pagevec_count(pvec); i++) {
> + struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
> + struct zone *pagezone = page_zone(page);
> +
> + if (pagezone != zone) {
> + if (zone)
> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> + zone = pagezone;
> + spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> + }
> +
> + if (PageLRU(page)) {
> + if (PageActive(page)) {
> + file = page_is_file_cache(page);
> + lru = page_lru_base_type(page);
> + del_page_from_lru_list(zone, page,
> + lru + LRU_ACTIVE);
> + ClearPageActive(page);
> + ClearPageReferenced(page);
> + add_page_to_lru_list(zone, page, lru);
> + __count_vm_event(PGDEACTIVATE);
> +
> + update_page_reclaim_stat(zone, page, file, 0);
When PageActive is unset, we need to change cgroup lru too.
> + }
> + }
> + }
> + if (zone)
> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> +
> + release_pages(pvec->pages, pvec->nr, pvec->cold);
> + pagevec_reinit(pvec);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Drain pages out of the cpu's pagevecs.
> * Either "cpu" is the current CPU, and preemption has already been
> @@ -292,8 +333,28 @@ static void drain_cpu_pagevecs(int cpu)
> pagevec_move_tail(pvec);
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> }
> +
> + pvec = &per_cpu(lru_deactive_pvecs, cpu);
> + if (pagevec_count(pvec))
> + __pagevec_lru_deactive(pvec);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Function used to forecefully demote a page to the head of the inactive
> + * list.
> + */
> +void lru_deactive_page(struct page *page)
> +{
> + if (likely(get_page_unless_zero(page))) {
Probably, we can check PageLRU and PageActive here too. It help to avoid
unnecessary batching and may slightly increase performance.
> + struct pagevec *pvec = &get_cpu_var(lru_deactive_pvecs);
> +
> + if (!pagevec_add(pvec, page))
> + __pagevec_lru_deactive(pvec);
> + put_cpu_var(lru_deactive_pvecs);
> + }
> }
>
> +
> void lru_add_drain(void)
> {
> drain_cpu_pagevecs(get_cpu());
> diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c
> index cd94607..c73fb19 100644
> --- a/mm/truncate.c
> +++ b/mm/truncate.c
> @@ -332,7 +332,8 @@ unsigned long invalidate_mapping_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> {
> struct pagevec pvec;
> pgoff_t next = start;
> - unsigned long ret = 0;
> + unsigned long ret;
> + unsigned long count = 0;
> int i;
>
> pagevec_init(&pvec, 0);
> @@ -359,8 +360,10 @@ unsigned long invalidate_mapping_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> if (lock_failed)
> continue;
>
> - ret += invalidate_inode_page(page);
> -
> + ret = invalidate_inode_page(page);
> + if (!ret)
> + lru_deactive_page(page);
> + count += ret;
> unlock_page(page);
> if (next > end)
> break;
> @@ -369,7 +372,7 @@ unsigned long invalidate_mapping_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> mem_cgroup_uncharge_end();
> cond_resched();
> }
> - return ret;
> + return count;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(invalidate_mapping_pages);
>
> --
> 1.7.0.4
>
> --
> 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/
--
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