From: Vovo Yang <vovoy@chromium.org>
To: mhocko@kernel.org
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm, drm/i915: mark pinned shmemfs pages as unevictable
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 20:35:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEHM+4rvBmFWhzPXZrwxXvMEmVdkpsgRg26wVNYSA8HKF_8AwQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181101130910.GI23921@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 9:10 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> OK, so that explain my question about the test case. Even though you
> generate a lot of page cache, the amount is still too small to trigger
> pagecache mostly reclaim and anon LRUs are scanned as well.
>
> Now to the difference with the previous version which simply set the
> UNEVICTABLE flag on mapping. Am I right assuming that pages are already
> at LRU at the time? Is there any reason the mapping cannot have the flag
> set before they are added to the LRU?
I checked again. When I run gem_syslatency, it sets unevictable flag
first and then adds pages to LRU, so my explanation to the previous
test result is wrong. It should not be necessary to explicitly move
these pages to unevictable list for this test case. The performance
improvement of this patch on kbl might be due to not calling
shmem_unlock_mapping.
The perf result of a shmem lock test shows find_get_entries is the
most expensive part of shmem_unlock_mapping.
85.32%--ksys_shmctl
shmctl_do_lock
--85.29%--shmem_unlock_mapping
|--45.98%--find_get_entries
| --10.16%--radix_tree_next_chunk
|--16.78%--check_move_unevictable_pages
|--16.07%--__pagevec_release
| --15.67%--release_pages
| --4.82%--free_unref_page_list
|--4.38%--pagevec_remove_exceptionals
--0.59%--_cond_resched
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-02 12:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-31 8:19 Kuo-Hsin Yang
2018-10-31 9:41 ` Chris Wilson
2018-10-31 10:42 ` Vovo Yang
2018-11-01 12:20 ` Chris Wilson
2018-10-31 14:19 ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-01 12:06 ` Vovo Yang
2018-11-01 14:30 ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-02 13:22 ` Vovo Yang
2018-11-02 14:05 ` Dave Hansen
2018-11-05 11:24 ` Kuo-Hsin Yang
2018-10-31 14:24 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-31 14:40 ` Dave Hansen
2018-10-31 16:42 ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-01 11:28 ` Vovo Yang
2018-11-01 13:09 ` Michal Hocko
2018-11-02 12:35 ` Vovo Yang [this message]
2018-11-02 18:26 ` Michal Hocko
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=CAEHM+4rvBmFWhzPXZrwxXvMEmVdkpsgRg26wVNYSA8HKF_8AwQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=vovoy@chromium.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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