From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@osdl.org
Cc: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Do not mark being-truncated-pages as cache hot
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:03:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <66880000.1095120205@flay> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040913215753.GA23119@logos.cnet>
> The truncate VM functions use pagevec's for operation batching, but they mark
> the pagevec used to hold being-truncated-pages as "cache hot".
>
> There is nothing which indicates such pages are likely to be "cache hot" - the
> following patch marks being-truncated-pages as cold instead.
Are they coming from the reclaim path? looks at a glance like they are,
in which case cold would definitely be correct.
> BTW Martin, I'm wondering on a few performance points about the per_cpu_page lists,
> as we talked on chat before. Here they are:
>
> - I wonder if the size of the lists are optimal. They might be too big to fit into the caches.
Doesn't really matter that much if they are over-sized, it doesn't do all
that much harm, but it would be better if we sized it off the CPUs actual
cache size. Does anyone know a consistent way to get that across arches?
> - Making the allocation policy FIFO should drastically increase the chances "hot" pages
> are handed to the allocator. AFAIK the policy now is LIFO.
It should definitely have been FIFO to start with ... at least that was
the intent. free_hot_cold_page is doing list_add between head and head->next, buffered_rmqueue is doing list_del from the head, AFAICS, so it should work.
> - When we we hit the high per_cpu_pages watermark, which can easily happen,
> further hot pages being freed are send down to the SLAB manager, until
> the pcp count goes below the high watermark. Meaning that during this period
> the hot/cold logic goes down the drain.
Well, we should be freeing off the BACK end of the FIFO stack into the page
allocator - I haven't checked it but that was the intent.
> But the main point of the pcp lists, which is to avoid locking AFAIK,
> is not affected by the issues I describe.
Well, it's both - they both had a fairly significant effect, IIRC.
M.
--
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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-14 0:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-13 21:57 Marcelo Tosatti
2004-09-13 23:45 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-13 23:10 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-09-14 0:03 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2004-09-13 23:19 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-09-14 1:21 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-14 10:13 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-09-14 0:10 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-14 0:24 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-09-13 23:31 ` Marcelo Tosatti
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=66880000.1095120205@flay \
--to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com \
--cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
/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