[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180205053013.GB16980@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:30:13 +0800
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
To: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
Subject: RFC: eliminate zone->lock contention for will-it-scale/page_fault1
on big server
In addition the the two patches, there are two more patches that I would
like to get some feedback.
The two patches are more radical: the 3rd deals with free path
zone->lock contention by avoiding doing any merge for order0 pages while
the 4th deals with allocation path zone->lock contention by taking
pcp->batch pages off the free_area order0 list without the need to
iterate the list.
Both patches are developed based on "the most time consuming part of
operations under zone->lock is cache misses on struct page".
The 3rd patch may be controversial but doesn't have correctness problem;
the 4th is in an early stage and serves only as a proof-of-concept.
Your comments are appreciated, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists