[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110427173450.82cef21e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:34:50 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 6/8] In order putback lru core
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:25:23 +0900
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com> wrote:
> This patch defines new APIs to putback the page into previous position of LRU.
> The idea is simple.
>
> When we try to putback the page into lru list and if friends(prev, next) of the pages
> still is nearest neighbor, we can insert isolated page into prev's next instead of
> head of LRU list. So it keeps LRU history without losing the LRU information.
>
> Before :
> LRU POV : H - P1 - P2 - P3 - P4 -T
>
> Isolate P3 :
> LRU POV : H - P1 - P2 - P4 - T
>
> Putback P3 :
> if (P2->next == P4)
> putback(P3, P2);
> So,
> LRU POV : H - P1 - P2 - P3 - P4 -T
>
> For implement, we defines new structure pages_lru which remebers
> both lru friend pages of isolated one and handling functions.
>
> But this approach has a problem on contiguous pages.
> In this case, my idea can not work since friend pages are isolated, too.
> It means prev_page->next == next_page always is false and both pages are not
> LRU any more at that time. It's pointed out by Rik at LSF/MM summit.
> So for solving the problem, I can change the idea.
> I think we don't need both friend(prev, next) pages relation but
> just consider either prev or next page that it is still same LRU.
> Worset case in this approach, prev or next page is free and allocate new
> so it's in head of LRU and our isolated page is located on next of head.
> But it's almost same situation with current problem. So it doesn't make worse
> than now and it would be rare. But in this version, I implement based on idea
> discussed at LSF/MM. If my new idea makes sense, I will change it.
>
I think using only 'next'(prev?) pointer will be enough.
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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