From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Arthur Marsh <arthur.marsh@internode.on.net>,
Clemens Ladisch <cladisch@googlemail.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: Minimise the time IRQs are disabled while isolating pages for migration
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:32:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110225223204.GW25382@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1298664299-10270-3-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie>
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:04:59PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
>
> compaction_alloc() isolates pages for migration in isolate_migratepages. While
> it's scanning, IRQs are disabled on the mistaken assumption the scanning
> should be short. Tests show this to be true for the most part but
> contention times on the LRU lock can be increased. Before this patch,
> the IRQ disabled times for a simple test looked like
>
> Total sampled time IRQs off (not real total time): 5493
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 1596 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 1530 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 956 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 541 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 531 us count 1
> Event split_huge_page..add_to_swap 232 us count 1
> Event save_args..call_softirq 36 us count 1
> Event save_args..call_softirq 35 us count 2
> Event __wake_up..__wake_up 1 us count 1
>
> This patch reduces the worst-case IRQs-disabled latencies by releasing the
> lock every SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages that are scanned and releasing the CPU if
> necessary. The cost of this is that the processing performing compaction will
> be slower but IRQs being disabled for too long a time has worse consequences
> as the following report shows;
>
> Total sampled time IRQs off (not real total time): 4367
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 881 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 875 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 868 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 555 us count 1
> Event split_huge_page..add_to_swap 495 us count 1
> Event compact_zone..compact_zone_order 269 us count 1
> Event split_huge_page..add_to_swap 266 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 85 us count 1
> Event save_args..call_softirq 36 us count 2
> Event __wake_up..__wake_up 1 us count 1
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> ---
> mm/compaction.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
> index 11d88a2..ec9eb0f 100644
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> @@ -279,9 +279,27 @@ static unsigned long isolate_migratepages(struct zone *zone,
> }
>
> /* Time to isolate some pages for migration */
> + cond_resched();
> spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> for (; low_pfn < end_pfn; low_pfn++) {
> struct page *page;
> + bool unlocked = false;
> +
> + /* give a chance to irqs before checking need_resched() */
> + if (!((low_pfn+1) % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX)) {
> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> + unlocked = true;
> + }
> + if (need_resched() || spin_is_contended(&zone->lru_lock)) {
> + if (!unlocked)
> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> + cond_resched();
> + spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> + break;
> + } else if (unlocked)
> + spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> +
I don't understand why this conditional is broken up like this.
cond_resched() will have the right checks anyway. Okay, you would
save fatal_signal_pending() in the 'did one cluster' case. Is it that
expensive? Couldn't this be simpler like
did_cluster = ((low_pfn + 1) % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) == 0
lock_contended = spin_is_contended(&zone->lru_lock);
if (did_cluster || lock_contended || need_resched()) {
spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
cond_resched();
spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
break;
}
instead?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Arthur Marsh <arthur.marsh@internode.on.net>,
Clemens Ladisch <cladisch@googlemail.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: Minimise the time IRQs are disabled while isolating pages for migration
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 23:32:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110225223204.GW25382@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1298664299-10270-3-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie>
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:04:59PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
>
> compaction_alloc() isolates pages for migration in isolate_migratepages. While
> it's scanning, IRQs are disabled on the mistaken assumption the scanning
> should be short. Tests show this to be true for the most part but
> contention times on the LRU lock can be increased. Before this patch,
> the IRQ disabled times for a simple test looked like
>
> Total sampled time IRQs off (not real total time): 5493
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 1596 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 1530 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 956 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 541 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 531 us count 1
> Event split_huge_page..add_to_swap 232 us count 1
> Event save_args..call_softirq 36 us count 1
> Event save_args..call_softirq 35 us count 2
> Event __wake_up..__wake_up 1 us count 1
>
> This patch reduces the worst-case IRQs-disabled latencies by releasing the
> lock every SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX pages that are scanned and releasing the CPU if
> necessary. The cost of this is that the processing performing compaction will
> be slower but IRQs being disabled for too long a time has worse consequences
> as the following report shows;
>
> Total sampled time IRQs off (not real total time): 4367
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 881 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 875 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 868 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 555 us count 1
> Event split_huge_page..add_to_swap 495 us count 1
> Event compact_zone..compact_zone_order 269 us count 1
> Event split_huge_page..add_to_swap 266 us count 1
> Event shrink_inactive_list..shrink_zone 85 us count 1
> Event save_args..call_softirq 36 us count 2
> Event __wake_up..__wake_up 1 us count 1
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
> ---
> mm/compaction.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
> index 11d88a2..ec9eb0f 100644
> --- a/mm/compaction.c
> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
> @@ -279,9 +279,27 @@ static unsigned long isolate_migratepages(struct zone *zone,
> }
>
> /* Time to isolate some pages for migration */
> + cond_resched();
> spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> for (; low_pfn < end_pfn; low_pfn++) {
> struct page *page;
> + bool unlocked = false;
> +
> + /* give a chance to irqs before checking need_resched() */
> + if (!((low_pfn+1) % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX)) {
> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> + unlocked = true;
> + }
> + if (need_resched() || spin_is_contended(&zone->lru_lock)) {
> + if (!unlocked)
> + spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> + cond_resched();
> + spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> + if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> + break;
> + } else if (unlocked)
> + spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> +
I don't understand why this conditional is broken up like this.
cond_resched() will have the right checks anyway. Okay, you would
save fatal_signal_pending() in the 'did one cluster' case. Is it that
expensive? Couldn't this be simpler like
did_cluster = ((low_pfn + 1) % SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) == 0
lock_contended = spin_is_contended(&zone->lru_lock);
if (did_cluster || lock_contended || need_resched()) {
spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
cond_resched();
spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
break;
}
instead?
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-25 22:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-25 20:04 [PATCH 0/2] Reduce the amount of time compaction disables IRQs for V2 Mel Gorman
2011-02-25 20:04 ` Mel Gorman
2011-02-25 20:04 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: compaction: Minimise the time IRQs are disabled while isolating free pages Mel Gorman
2011-02-25 20:04 ` Mel Gorman
2011-02-25 22:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-02-25 22:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-02-28 1:55 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-28 1:55 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-28 22:08 ` Minchan Kim
2011-02-28 22:08 ` Minchan Kim
2011-02-25 20:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: Minimise the time IRQs are disabled while isolating pages for migration Mel Gorman
2011-02-25 20:04 ` Mel Gorman
2011-02-25 22:32 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2011-02-25 22:32 ` Johannes Weiner
2011-02-26 0:16 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-02-26 0:16 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-02-28 2:17 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-28 2:17 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-28 5:48 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-02-28 5:48 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-02-28 5:54 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-28 5:54 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-28 9:28 ` Mel Gorman
2011-02-28 9:28 ` Mel Gorman
2011-02-28 9:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-28 9:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-28 10:18 ` Mel Gorman
2011-02-28 10:18 ` Mel Gorman
2011-02-28 23:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-28 23:42 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-01 4:11 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-01 4:11 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-01 4:49 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-03-01 4:49 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2011-02-28 23:01 ` Minchan Kim
2011-02-28 23:01 ` Minchan Kim
2011-02-28 23:07 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-02-28 23:07 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-02-28 23:25 ` Minchan Kim
2011-02-28 23:25 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-01 22:15 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-01 22:15 ` Andrew Morton
2011-02-25 20:07 ` [PATCH 0/2] Reduce the amount of time compaction disables IRQs for V2 Andrea Arcangeli
2011-02-25 20:07 ` Andrea Arcangeli
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-03-01 15:35 [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: Minimise the time IRQs are disabled while isolating pages for migration Minchan Kim
2011-03-01 15:35 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-01 16:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-03-01 16:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2011-03-01 22:22 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-01 22:22 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-01 22:34 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-01 22:34 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-01 22:57 ` Minchan Kim
2011-03-01 22:57 ` Minchan Kim
2011-02-25 18:00 [PATCH 0/2] Reduce the amount of time compaction disables IRQs for Mel Gorman
2011-02-25 18:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: compaction: Minimise the time IRQs are disabled while isolating pages for migration Mel Gorman
2011-02-25 18:00 ` Mel Gorman
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=20110225223204.GW25382@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arthur.marsh@internode.on.net \
--cc=cladisch@googlemail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.