[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53C95F55.3010608@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 10:54:29 -0700
From: Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>
To: Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
'±èÁؼö' <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
CC: Michal Nazarewicz <mina86@...a86.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, ÀÌ°ÇÈ£ <gunho.lee@....com>,
'Chanho Min' <chanho.min@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CMA/HOTPLUG: clear buffer-head lru before page migration
On 7/17/2014 11:45 PM, Gioh Kim wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> For page migration of CMA, buffer-heads of lru should be dropped.
> Please refer to https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/7/4/101 for the history.
>
> I have two solution to drop bhs.
> One is invalidating entire lru.
> Another is searching the lru and dropping only one bh that Laura proposed
> at https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/31/313.
>
> I'm not sure which has better performance.
> So I did performance test on my cortex-a7 platform with Lmbench
> that has "File & VM system latencies" test.
> I am attaching the results.
> The first line is of invalidating entire lru and the second is dropping selected bh.
>
> File & VM system latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Host OS 0K File 10K File Mmap Prot Page 100fd
> Create Delete Create Delete Latency Fault Fault selct
> --------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- ------- -----
> 10.178.33 Linux 3.10.19 25.1 19.6 32.6 19.7 5098.0 0.666 3.45880 6.506
> 10.178.33 Linux 3.10.19 24.9 19.5 32.3 19.4 5059.0 0.563 3.46380 6.521
>
>
> I tried several times but the result tells that they are the same under 1% gap
> except Protection Fault.
> But the latency of Protection Fault is very small and I think it has little effect.
>
> Therefore we can choose anything but I choose invalidating entire lru.
> The try_to_free_buffers() which is calling drop_buffers() is called by many filesystem code.
> So I think inserting codes in drop_buffers() can affect the system.
> And also we cannot distinguish migration type in drop_buffers().
>
> In alloc_contig_range() we can distinguish migration type and invalidate lru if it needs.
> I think alloc_contig_range() is proper to deal with bh like following patch.
>
> Laura, can I have you name on Acked-by line?
> Please let me represent my thanks.
>
> Thanks for any feedback.
>
> ------------------------------- 8< ----------------------------------
>
> From 33c894b1bab9bc26486716f0c62c452d3a04d35d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@....com>
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:40:01 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] CMA/HOTPLUG: clear buffer-head lru before page migration
>
> The bh must be free to migrate a page at which bh is mapped.
> The reference count of bh is increased when it is installed
> into lru so that the bh of lru must be freed before migrating the page.
>
> This frees every bh of lru. We could free only bh of migrating page.
> But searching lru costs more than invalidating entire lru.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@....com>
> Acked-by: Laura Abbott <lauraa@...eaurora.org>\
I'd prefer if you would remove my Acked-by line until I've actually
given it :)
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index b99643d4..3b474e0 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -6369,6 +6369,9 @@ int alloc_contig_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> + if (migratetype == MIGRATE_CMA || migratetype == MIGRATE_MOVABLE)
> + invalidate_bh_lrus();
> +
> ret = __alloc_contig_migrate_range(&cc, start, end);
> if (ret)
> goto done;
I agree with the others that the if (...) check doesn't actually help
anything here and should probably be removed.
Thanks,
Laura
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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