linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>

  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