From: Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, eric.whitney@hp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 17/25] Mlocked Pages are non-reclaimable
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:43:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1213134197.6872.49.camel@lts-notebook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080610171400.149886cf@cuia.bos.redhat.com>
On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 17:14 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 05:31:30 +0200
> Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:
>
> > If we eventually run out of page flags on 32 bit, then sure this might be
> > one we could look at geting rid of. Once the code has proven itself.
>
> Yes, after the code has proven stable, we can probably get
> rid of the PG_mlocked bit and use only PG_unevictable to mark
> these pages.
>
> Lee, Kosaki-san, do you see any problem with that approach?
> Is the PG_mlocked bit really necessary for non-debugging
> purposes?
>
Well, it does speed up the check for mlocked pages in page_reclaimable()
[now page_evictable()?] as we don't have to walk the reverse map to
determine that a page is mlocked. In many places where we currently
test page_reclaimable(), we really don't want to and maybe can't walk
the reverse map.
Unless you're evisioning even larger rework, the PG_unevictable flag
[formerly PG_noreclaim, right?] is analogous to PG_active. It's only
set when the page is on the corresponding lru list or being held
isolated from it, temporarily. See isolate_lru_page() and
putback_lru_page() and users thereof--such as mlock_vma_page(). Again,
I have seen what changes you're making here, so maybe that's all
changing. But, currently, PG_unevictable would not be a replacement for
PG_mlocked.
Anyway, let's see what you come up with before we tackle this.
Couple of related items:
+ 26-rc5-mm1 + a small fix to the double unlock_page() in
shrink_page_list() has been running for a couple of hours on my 32G,
16cpu ia64 numa platform w/o error. Seems to have survived the merge
into -mm, despite the issues Andrew has raised.
+ on same platform, Mel Gorman's mminit debug code is reporting that
we're using 22 page flags with Noreclaim, Mlock and PAGEFLAGS_EXTENDED
configured.
Lee
--
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:[~2008-06-10 21:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20080606202838.390050172@redhat.com>
2008-06-06 20:28 ` [PATCH -mm 13/25] Noreclaim LRU Infrastructure Rik van Riel, Rik van Riel
2008-06-07 1:05 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-08 20:34 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-08 20:57 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-08 21:32 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-08 21:43 ` Ray Lee
2008-06-08 23:22 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-08 23:34 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-08 23:54 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-09 0:56 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-09 6:10 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-09 13:44 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-09 2:58 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-09 5:44 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-10 19:17 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-06-10 19:37 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-10 21:33 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-10 21:48 ` Andi Kleen
2008-06-10 22:05 ` Dave Hansen
2008-06-11 5:09 ` Paul Mundt
2008-06-11 6:16 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-11 6:29 ` Paul Mundt
2008-06-11 12:06 ` Andi Kleen
2008-06-11 14:09 ` Removing node flags from page->flags was Re: [PATCH -mm 13/25] Noreclaim LRU Infrastructure II Andi Kleen
2008-06-11 19:03 ` [PATCH -mm 13/25] Noreclaim LRU Infrastructure Andy Whitcroft
2008-06-11 20:52 ` Andi Kleen
2008-06-11 23:25 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-06-08 22:03 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-08 21:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-06-10 20:09 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-06 20:28 ` [PATCH -mm 15/25] Ramfs and Ram Disk pages are non-reclaimable Rik van Riel, Rik van Riel
2008-06-07 1:05 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-08 4:32 ` Greg KH
2008-06-06 20:28 ` [PATCH -mm 17/25] Mlocked Pages " Rik van Riel, Rik van Riel
2008-06-07 1:07 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-07 5:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2008-06-10 3:31 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-10 12:50 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-10 21:14 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-10 21:43 ` Lee Schermerhorn [this message]
2008-06-10 21:57 ` Andrew Morton
2008-06-11 16:01 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-06-10 23:48 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-11 15:29 ` Lee Schermerhorn
2008-06-11 1:00 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-06 20:28 ` [PATCH -mm 19/25] Handle mlocked pages during map, remap, unmap Rik van Riel, Rik van Riel
2008-06-06 20:28 ` [PATCH -mm 21/25] Cull non-reclaimable pages in fault path Rik van Riel, Rik van Riel, Lee Schermerhorn
2008-06-06 20:29 ` [PATCH -mm 23/25] Noreclaim LRU scan sysctl Rik van Riel, Rik van Riel, Lee Schermerhorn
2008-06-06 20:29 ` [PATCH -mm 25/25] Noreclaim LRU and Mlocked Pages Documentation Rik van Riel, Rik van Riel
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=1213134197.6872.49.camel@lts-notebook \
--to=lee.schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=eric.whitney@hp.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--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