From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@intel.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]shmem: reduce one time of locking in pagefault
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 09:39:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100707013919.GA22097@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100706183254.cf67e29e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:32:54AM +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:15:46 +0800 Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm running a shmem pagefault test case (see attached file) under a 64 CPU
> > system. Profile shows shmem_inode_info->lock is heavily contented and 100%
> > CPUs time are trying to get the lock.
>
> I seem to remember complaining about that in 2002 ;) Faulting in a
> mapping of /dev/zero is just awful on a 4-way(!).
>
> > In the pagefault (no swap) case,
> > shmem_getpage gets the lock twice, the last one is avoidable if we prealloc a
> > page so we could reduce one time of locking. This is what below patch does.
> >
> > The result of the test case:
> > 2.6.35-rc3: ~20s
> > 2.6.35-rc3 + patch: ~12s
> > so this is 40% improvement.
> >
> > One might argue if we could have better locking for shmem. But even shmem is lockless,
> > the pagefault will soon have pagecache lock heavily contented because shmem must add
> > new page to pagecache. So before we have better locking for pagecache, improving shmem
> > locking doesn't have too much improvement. I did a similar pagefault test against
> > a ramfs file, the test result is ~10.5s.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> > index f65f840..c5f2939 100644
> > --- a/mm/shmem.c
> > +++ b/mm/shmem.c
>
> The patch doesn't make shmem_getpage() any clearer :(
>
> shmem_inode_info.lock appears to be held too much. Surely
> lookup_swap_cache() didn't need it (for example).
>
> What data does shmem_inode_info.lock actually protect?
As far as my understanding, it protects shmem swp_entry, which is most used
to support swap. It also protects some accounting. If no swap, the lock almost
can be removed like tiny-shmem.
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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:[~2010-07-07 1:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-07 1:15 Shaohua Li
2010-07-07 1:32 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-07 1:39 ` Shaohua Li [this message]
2010-07-09 1:28 ` Hugh Dickins
2010-07-09 1:13 ` Hugh Dickins
2010-07-09 2:52 ` Shaohua Li
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=20100707013919.GA22097@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com \
--to=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=yanmin.zhang@intel.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