[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160916140707.GI5020@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:07:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm, vmscan: Batch removal of mappings under a single
lock during reclaim
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 03:25:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:59:32AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Pages unmapped during reclaim acquire/release the mapping->tree_lock for
> > every single page. There are two cases when it's likely that pages at the
> > tail of the LRU share the same mapping -- large amounts of IO to/from a
> > single file and swapping. This patch acquires the mapping->tree_lock for
> > multiple page removals.
>
> So, once upon a time, in a galaxy far away,.. I did a concurrent
> pagecache patch set that replaced the tree_lock with a per page bit-
> spinlock and fine grained locking in the radix tree.
>
> I know the mm has changed quite a bit since, but would such an approach
> still be feasible?
>
> I cannot seem to find an online reference to a 'complete' version of
> that patch set, but I did find the OLS paper on it and I did find some
> copies on my local machines.
https://www.kernel.org/doc/ols/2007/ols2007v2-pages-311-318.pdf
Powered by blists - more mailing lists