From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx134.postini.com [74.125.245.134]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7EDE76B0068 for ; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 02:09:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <51AD84BA.4090106@sr71.net> Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 23:10:02 -0700 From: Dave Hansen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [v5][PATCH 5/6] mm: vmscan: batch shrink_page_list() locking operations References: <20130603200202.7F5FDE07@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20130603200208.6F71D31F@viggo.jf.intel.com> <20130604050103.GC14719@blaptop> In-Reply-To: <20130604050103.GC14719@blaptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Minchan Kim Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com On 06/03/2013 10:01 PM, Minchan Kim wrote: >> > +static int __remove_mapping_batch(struct list_head *remove_list, >> > + struct list_head *ret_pages, >> > + struct list_head *free_pages) >> > +{ >> > + int nr_reclaimed = 0; >> > + struct address_space *mapping; >> > + struct page *page; >> > + LIST_HEAD(need_free_mapping); >> > + >> > + while (!list_empty(remove_list)) { ... >> > + if (!__remove_mapping(mapping, page)) { >> > + unlock_page(page); >> > + list_add(&page->lru, ret_pages); >> > + continue; >> > + } >> > + list_add(&page->lru, &need_free_mapping); ... > + spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock); > + while (!list_empty(&need_free_mapping)) {... > + list_move(&page->list, free_pages); > + mapping_release_page(mapping, page); > + } > Why do we need new lru list instead of using @free_pages? I actually tried using @free_pages at first. The problem is that we need to call mapping_release_page() without the radix tree lock held so we can not do it in the first while() loop. 'free_pages' is a list created up in shrink_page_list(). There can be several calls to __remove_mapping_batch() for each call to shrink_page_list(). 'need_free_mapping' lets us temporarily differentiate the pages that we need to call mapping_release_page()/unlock_page() on versus the ones on 'free_pages' which have already had that done. We could theoretically delay _all_ of the release_mapping_page()/unlock_page() operations until the _entire_ shrink_page_list() operation is done, but doing this really helps with lock_page() latency. Does that make sense? -- 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