From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
Larry Woodman <lwoodman@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] high system time & lock contention running large mixed workload
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:31:09 +0900 (JST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091201212357.5C3A.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091201100444.GN30235@random.random>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 05:00:29PM -0500, Larry Woodman wrote:
> > Before the splitLRU patch shrink_active_list() would only call
> > page_referenced() when reclaim_mapped got set. reclaim_mapped only got
> > set when the priority worked its way from 12 all the way to 7. This
> > prevented page_referenced() from being called from shrink_active_list()
> > until the system was really struggling to reclaim memory.
>
> page_referenced should never be called and nobody should touch ptes
> until priority went down to 7. This is a regression in splitLRU that
> should be fixed. With light VM pressure we should never touch ptes ever.
Ummm. I can't agree this. 7 is too small priority. if large system have prio==7,
the system have unacceptable big latency trouble.
if only prio==DEF_PRIOTIRY or something, I can agree you probably.
> > On way to prevent this is to change page_check_address() to execute a
> > spin_trylock(ptl) when it was called by shrink_active_list() and simply
> > fail if it could not get the pte_lockptr spinlock. This will make
> > shrink_active_list() consider the page not referenced and allow the
> > anon_vma->lock to be dropped much quicker.
> >
> > The attached patch does just that, thoughts???
>
> Just stop calling page_referenced there...
>
> Even if we ignore the above, one problem later in skipping over the PT
> lock, is also to assume the page is not referenced when it actually
> is, so it won't be activated again when page_referenced is called
> again to move the page back in the active list... Not the end of the
> world to lose a young bit sometime though.
>
> There may be all reasons in the world why we have to mess with ptes
> when there's light VM pressure, for whatever terabyte machine or
> whatever workload that performs better that way, but I know in 100% of
> my systems I don't ever want the VM to touch ptes when there's light
> VM pressure, no matter what. So if you want the default to be messing
> with ptes, just give me a sysctl knob to let me run faster.
Um.
Avoiding lock contention on light VM pressure is important than
strict lru order. I guess we don't need knob.
--
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:[~2009-12-01 12:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-25 18:37 [PATCH] vmscan: do not evict inactive pages when skipping an active list scan Rik van Riel
2009-11-25 20:35 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-11-25 20:47 ` Rik van Riel
2009-11-26 2:50 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-11-26 2:57 ` Rik van Riel
2009-11-30 22:00 ` [RFC] high system time & lock contention running large mixed workload Larry Woodman
2009-12-01 10:04 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-12-01 12:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro [this message]
2009-12-01 12:46 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2009-12-02 2:02 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-02 2:04 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-02 2:00 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-01 12:23 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-01 16:41 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-02 2:20 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-02 2:41 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-03 22:14 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-04 0:29 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-04 21:26 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-06 21:04 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-04 0:36 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-04 19:31 ` Larry Woodman
2009-12-02 2:55 ` [PATCH] Clear reference bit although page isn't mapped KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-02 3:07 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-02 3:28 ` [PATCH] Replace page_mapping_inuse() with page_mapped() KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-12-02 4:57 ` Rik van Riel
2009-12-02 11:07 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-12-02 1:55 ` [RFC] high system time & lock contention running large mixed workload 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=20091201212357.5C3A.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hugh.dickins@tiscali.co.uk \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
--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