From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
From: Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@hp.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@hp.com>,
Kosaki Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Eric Whitney <eric.whitney@hp.com>
Subject: [PATCH -mm 20/24] swap: cull unevictable pages in fault path
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:42:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080611184340.100326062@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080611184214.605110868@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: vmscan-cull-non-reclaimable-pages-in-fault-path.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 6358 bytes --]
In the fault paths that install new anonymous pages, check whether
the page is evictable or not using lru_cache_add_active_or_unevictable().
If the page is evictable, just add it to the active lru list [via
the pagevec cache], else add it to the unevictable list.
This "proactive" culling in the fault path mimics the handling of
mlocked pages in Nick Piggin's series to keep mlocked pages off
the lru lists.
Notes:
1) This patch is optional--e.g., if one is concerned about the
additional test in the fault path. We can defer the moving of
nonreclaimable pages until when vmscan [shrink_*_list()]
encounters them. Vmscan will only need to handle such pages
once, but if there are a lot of them it could impact system
performance.
2) The 'vma' argument to page_evictable() is require to notice that
we're faulting a page into an mlock()ed vma w/o having to scan the
page's rmap in the fault path. Culling mlock()ed anon pages is
currently the only reason for this patch.
3) We can't cull swap pages in read_swap_cache_async() because the
vma argument doesn't necessarily correspond to the swap cache
offset passed in by swapin_readahead(). This could [did!] result
in mlocking pages in non-VM_LOCKED vmas if [when] we tried to
cull in this path.
4) Move set_pte_at() to after where we add page to lru to keep it
hidden from other tasks that might walk the page table.
We already do it in this order in do_anonymous() page. And,
these are COW'd anon pages. Is this safe?
Signed-off-by: Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@hp.com>
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
---
V2 -> V3:
+ rebase to 23-mm1 atop RvR's split lru series.
V1 -> V2:
+ no changes
include/linux/swap.h | 2 ++
mm/memory.c | 20 ++++++++++++--------
mm/swap.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6.26-rc5-mm2/mm/memory.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.26-rc5-mm2.orig/mm/memory.c 2008-06-10 22:21:14.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.26-rc5-mm2/mm/memory.c 2008-06-10 22:21:16.000000000 -0400
@@ -1813,12 +1813,15 @@ gotten:
* thread doing COW.
*/
ptep_clear_flush(vma, address, page_table);
- set_pte_at(mm, address, page_table, entry);
- update_mmu_cache(vma, address, entry);
+
SetPageSwapBacked(new_page);
- lru_cache_add_active_anon(new_page);
+ lru_cache_add_active_or_unevictable(new_page, vma);
page_add_new_anon_rmap(new_page, vma, address);
+//TODO: is this safe? do_anonymous_page() does it this way.
+ set_pte_at(mm, address, page_table, entry);
+ update_mmu_cache(vma, address, entry);
+
/* Free the old page.. */
new_page = old_page;
ret |= VM_FAULT_WRITE;
@@ -2285,7 +2288,7 @@ static int do_anonymous_page(struct mm_s
goto release;
inc_mm_counter(mm, anon_rss);
SetPageSwapBacked(page);
- lru_cache_add_active_anon(page);
+ lru_cache_add_active_or_unevictable(page, vma);
page_add_new_anon_rmap(page, vma, address);
set_pte_at(mm, address, page_table, entry);
@@ -2429,12 +2432,11 @@ static int __do_fault(struct mm_struct *
entry = mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot);
if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE)
entry = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(entry), vma);
- set_pte_at(mm, address, page_table, entry);
if (anon) {
- inc_mm_counter(mm, anon_rss);
+ inc_mm_counter(mm, anon_rss);
SetPageSwapBacked(page);
- lru_cache_add_active_anon(page);
- page_add_new_anon_rmap(page, vma, address);
+ lru_cache_add_active_or_unevictable(page, vma);
+ page_add_new_anon_rmap(page, vma, address);
} else {
inc_mm_counter(mm, file_rss);
page_add_file_rmap(page);
@@ -2443,6 +2445,8 @@ static int __do_fault(struct mm_struct *
get_page(dirty_page);
}
}
+//TODO: is this safe? do_anonymous_page() does it this way.
+ set_pte_at(mm, address, page_table, entry);
/* no need to invalidate: a not-present page won't be cached */
update_mmu_cache(vma, address, entry);
Index: linux-2.6.26-rc5-mm2/include/linux/swap.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.26-rc5-mm2.orig/include/linux/swap.h 2008-06-10 22:21:14.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.26-rc5-mm2/include/linux/swap.h 2008-06-10 22:24:12.000000000 -0400
@@ -173,6 +173,8 @@ extern unsigned int nr_free_pagecache_pa
/* linux/mm/swap.c */
extern void __lru_cache_add(struct page *, enum lru_list lru);
extern void lru_cache_add_lru(struct page *, enum lru_list lru);
+extern void lru_cache_add_active_or_unevictable(struct page *,
+ struct vm_area_struct *);
extern void activate_page(struct page *);
extern void mark_page_accessed(struct page *);
extern void lru_add_drain(void);
Index: linux-2.6.26-rc5-mm2/mm/swap.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.26-rc5-mm2.orig/mm/swap.c 2008-06-10 22:21:14.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.26-rc5-mm2/mm/swap.c 2008-06-10 22:21:16.000000000 -0400
@@ -31,6 +31,8 @@
#include <linux/backing-dev.h>
#include <linux/memcontrol.h>
+#include "internal.h"
+
/* How many pages do we try to swap or page in/out together? */
int page_cluster;
@@ -244,6 +246,25 @@ void add_page_to_unevictable_list(struct
spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
}
+/**
+ * lru_cache_add_active_or_unevictable
+ * @page: the page to be added to LRU
+ * @vma: vma in which page is mapped for determining reclaimability
+ *
+ * place @page on active or unevictable LRU list, depending on
+ * page_evictable(). Note that if the page is not evictable,
+ * it goes directly back onto it's zone's unevictable list. It does
+ * NOT use a per cpu pagevec.
+ */
+void lru_cache_add_active_or_unevictable(struct page *page,
+ struct vm_area_struct *vma)
+{
+ if (page_evictable(page, vma))
+ lru_cache_add_lru(page, page_lru(page));
+ else
+ add_page_to_unevictable_list(page);
+}
+
/*
* Drain pages out of the cpu's pagevecs.
* Either "cpu" is the current CPU, and preemption has already been
--
All Rights Reversed
--
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:[~2008-06-11 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20080611184214.605110868@redhat.com>
2008-06-11 18:42 ` [PATCH -mm 12/24] Unevictable LRU Infrastructure Rik van Riel
2008-06-11 18:42 ` [PATCH -mm 14/24] Ramfs and Ram Disk pages are unevictable Rik van Riel
2008-06-12 0:54 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-12 17:29 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-12 17:37 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-12 17:50 ` Rik van Riel
2008-06-12 17:57 ` Nick Piggin
2008-06-11 18:42 ` [PATCH -mm 16/24] mlock: mlocked " Rik van Riel, Nick Piggin
2008-06-11 18:42 ` [PATCH -mm 18/24] mmap: handle mlocked pages during map, remap, unmap Rik van Riel
2008-06-11 18:42 ` Rik van Riel, Lee Schermerhorn [this message]
2008-06-11 18:42 ` [PATCH -mm 22/24] vmscan: unevictable LRU scan sysctl Rik van Riel, Lee Schermerhorn
2008-06-11 18:42 ` [PATCH -mm 24/24] doc: unevictable LRU and mlocked pages documentation Rik van Riel
[not found] ` <20080611184339.159161465@redhat.com>
[not found] ` <4851C1CC.7070607@ct.jp.nec.com>
[not found] ` <20080613134827.5dbac5ac@cuia.bos.redhat.com>
2008-06-13 20:21 ` [PATCH] collect lru meminfo statistics from correct offset Lee Schermerhorn
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=20080611184340.100326062@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=eric.whitney@hp.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=lee.schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/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