[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101130140152.GA1528@barrios-desktop>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 23:01:52 +0900
From: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ben Gamari <bgamari.foss@...il.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Reclaim invalidated page ASAP
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:18:22AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:10:20AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > invalidate_mapping_pages is very big hint to reclaimer.
> > > It means user doesn't want to use the page any more.
> > > So in order to prevent working set page eviction, this patch
> > > move the page into tail of inactive list by PG_reclaim.
> > >
> > > Please, remember that pages in inactive list are working set
> > > as well as active list. If we don't move pages into inactive list's
> > > tail, pages near by tail of inactive list can be evicted although
> > > we have a big clue about useless pages. It's totally bad.
> > >
> > > Now PG_readahead/PG_reclaim is shared.
> > > fe3cba17 added ClearPageReclaim into clear_page_dirty_for_io for
> > > preventing fast reclaiming readahead marker page.
> > >
> > > In this series, PG_reclaim is used by invalidated page, too.
> > > If VM find the page is invalidated and it's dirty, it sets PG_reclaim
> > > to reclaim asap. Then, when the dirty page will be writeback,
> > > clear_page_dirty_for_io will clear PG_reclaim unconditionally.
> > > It disturbs this serie's goal.
> > >
> > > I think it's okay to clear PG_readahead when the page is dirty, not
> > > writeback time. So this patch moves ClearPageReadahead.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
> > > Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> > > Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> > > Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
> > > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> > > Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
> > > Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> >
> > I still dislike this one. I doubt this trick makes much benefit in real
> > world workload.
> >
>
> I would agree except as said elsewhere, it's a chicken and egg problem.
> We don't have a real world test because fadvise is not useful in its
> current iteration. I'm hoping that there will be a test comparing
>
> rsync on vanilla kernel
> rsync on patched kernel
> rsync+patch on vanilla kernel
> rsync+patch on patched kernel
>
> Are the results of such a test likely to happen?
Ben, Could you get the rsync execution time(user/sys) and
'cat /proc/vmstat' result before/after?
If Ben is busy, I will try to get a data. but I need enough time.
I expect rsync+patch on patched kernel should have a less allocstall, less pgscan
so fast execution time.
>
> --
> Mel Gorman
> Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
> University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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