From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, mbligh@mbligh.org, riel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] vmscan: give referenced, active and unmapped pages a second trip around the LRU
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 09:36:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1180078590.7348.27.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070525002829.19deb888.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 00:28 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 09:23:30 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > > > }
> > > > list_add(&page->lru, &l_inactive);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > That does a bit of extra work in the !PageReferenced && !page_mapped case,
> > > but whatever.
> > >
> > > The question is: what effect does the change have on page reclaim
> > > effectiveness? And how much more swappy does it become? And
> > > how much more oom-killery?
> >
> > All very good questions, of which I'd like to know the answers too :-(
>
> hm. We've always had this problem.
>
> > I'm sitting on a huge pile of reclaim code, and have no real way of
> > answering these questions; I did start writing some synthetic benchmark
> > suite, but never really finished it - perhaps I ought to dive into that
> > again after OLS.
>
> hm.
>
> > The trouble I had with the previous patch is that it somehow looks to
> > PG_referenced but not the PTE state, that seems wrong to me.
>
> if (page_mapped(page)) {
> if (!reclaim_mapped ||
> (total_swap_pages == 0 && PageAnon(page)) ||
> page_referenced(page, 0)) {
> list_add(&page->lru, &l_active);
> continue;
> }
> } else if (TestClearPageReferenced(page)) {
> list_add(&page->lru, &l_active);
> continue;
> }
>
> When we run TestClearPageReferenced() we know that the page isn't
> page_mapped(): there aren't any pte's which refer to it.
D'0h, I guess I need my morning juice...
OK, that was my biggest beef - another small nit: I think it should do
the page_referenced() first, and then the other checks (in the
page_mapped() branch). Otherwise we might 'leak' the referenced state
and give it yet another cycle on the active list - even though it was
not used since last we were here.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-25 7:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-24 23:57 akpm, Andrew Morton
2007-05-25 7:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-25 7:18 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-25 7:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-25 7:28 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-25 7:36 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2007-05-25 7:48 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-25 7:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-25 8:01 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-25 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-25 8:43 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-25 10:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-25 14:50 ` Rik van Riel
2007-05-25 14:43 ` Rik van Riel
2007-05-25 17:20 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1180078590.7348.27.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mbligh@mbligh.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox