Re: [PATCH 01/03] Unmapped: Implement two LRU:s

["Magnus Damm" <magnus.damm@gmail.com>]

On 3/11/06, Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Magnus Damm wrote:
>
> > Use separate LRU:s for mapped and unmapped pages.
> >
> > This patch creates two instances of "struct lru" per zone, both protected by
> > zone->lru_lock. A new bit in page->flags named PG_mapped is used to determine
> > which LRU the page belongs to. The rmap code is changed to move pages to the
> > mapped LRU, while the vmscan code moves pages back to the unmapped LRU when
> > needed. Pages moved to the mapped LRU are added to the inactive list, while
> > pages moved back to the unmapped LRU are added to the active list.
>
> The swapper moves pages to the unmapped list? So the mapped LRU
> lists contains unmapped pages? That would get rid of the benefit that I
> saw from this scheme. Pretty inconsistent.

The first (non released) versions of these patches modified rmap.c to
move the pages between the LRU:s both during adding and removing
rmap:s, so the mapped LRU would in that case keep mapped pages only.
This did however introduce more overhead, because pages only mapped by
a single process would bounce between the LRU:s when a such process
starts or terminates.

The split active list implementation by Nick Piggin did however only
move pages between the active lists during vmscan (if I understood the
patch correctly), which is something that I have not tried yet.

I think it would be interesting with 3 active lists, one for unmapped
pages, one for mapped file-backed pages and one for mapped anonymous
pages. And then let the vmscan code move pages between the lists.

Thank you for the comments!

/ magnus

--
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>