From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:31:08 -0400 From: Rik van Riel Subject: Re: PERF: performance tests with the split LRU VM in -mm Message-ID: <20080728203108.256de0c4@cuia.bos.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20080728171728.7d0452bc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20080724222510.3bbbbedc@bree.surriel.com> <20080728105742.50d6514e@cuia.bos.redhat.com> <20080728164124.8240eabe.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080728195713.42cbceed@cuia.bos.redhat.com> <20080728200311.2218af4e@cuia.bos.redhat.com> <20080728171728.7d0452bc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:17:28 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > /* > - * Try to keep the active list 2/3 of the size of the cache. And > - * make sure that refill_inactive is given a decent number of pages. > - * > - * The "scan_active + 1" here is important. With pagecache-intensive > - * workloads the inactive list is huge, and `ratio' evaluates to zero > - * all the time. Which pins the active list memory. So we add one to If the active list is so small that nr_active_file >> priority always evaluates to 0, I suspect it won't hurt at all to keep it around. After all, we now only scan once the (incrementing) scan number reaches swap_cluster_max. > - * `scan_active' just to make sure that the kernel will slowly sift > - * through the active list. > + * Add one to `nr_to_scan' just to make sure that the kernel will > + * slowly sift through the active list. > */ > - if (zone->nr_active >= 4*(zone->nr_inactive*2 + 1)) { > - /* Don't scan more than 4 times the inactive list scan size */ > - scan_active = 4*scan_inactive; > > (there was some regrettable information loss there). > > Is the scenario which that fix addresses no longer possible? I believe it is possible, but harmless. Maybe even desired. > On a different topic, I am staring in frustration at > introduce-__get_user_pages.patch, which says: > > New munlock processing need to GUP_FLAGS_IGNORE_VMA_PERMISSIONS. > because current get_user_pages() can't grab PROT_NONE pages theresore > it cause PROT_NONE pages can't munlock. > > could someone please work out for me which of these patches: > > vmscan-move-isolate_lru_page-to-vmscanc.patch > vmscan-use-an-indexed-array-for-lru-variables.patch > swap-use-an-array-for-the-lru-pagevecs.patch > vmscan-free-swap-space-on-swap-in-activation.patch > define-page_file_cache-function.patch > vmscan-split-lru-lists-into-anon-file-sets.patch > vmscan-second-chance-replacement-for-anonymous-pages.patch > vmscan-fix-pagecache-reclaim-referenced-bit-check.patch > vmscan-add-newly-swapped-in-pages-to-the-inactive-list.patch > more-aggressively-use-lumpy-reclaim.patch > pageflag-helpers-for-configed-out-flags.patch > unevictable-lru-infrastructure.patch > unevictable-lru-page-statistics.patch > ramfs-and-ram-disk-pages-are-unevictable.patch > shm_locked-pages-are-unevictable.patch > mlock-mlocked-pages-are-unevictable.patch > mlock-downgrade-mmap-sem-while-populating-mlocked-regions.patch > mmap-handle-mlocked-pages-during-map-remap-unmap.patch > > that patch fixes? I'll take a look later. Time to drive home and eat dinner :) -- 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: email@kvack.org