All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, aarcange@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2]compaction: check lock contention first before taking lock
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:57:41 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120906125741.GB1025@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120906122449.GR11266@suse.de>

On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 01:24:49PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 06:44:29PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > isolate_migratepages_range will take zone->lru_lock first and check if the lock
> > is contented, if yes, it will release the lock. This isn't efficient. If the
> > lock is truly contented, a lock/unlock pair will increase the lock contention.
> > We'd better check if the lock is contended first. compact_trylock_irqsave
> > perfectly meets the requirement.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fusionio.com>
> > ---
> >  mm/compaction.c |    7 ++++---
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Index: linux/mm/compaction.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/mm/compaction.c	2012-09-06 14:46:13.923144263 +0800
> > +++ linux/mm/compaction.c	2012-09-06 14:46:58.118588574 +0800
> > @@ -295,9 +295,9 @@ isolate_migratepages_range(struct zone *
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	/* Time to isolate some pages for migration */
> > -	cond_resched();
> 
> Why did you remove the cond_resched()? I expect it's because
> compact_checklock_irqsave() does a need_resched() check and if it is true
> will either call cond_resched() or abort compaction. If it is aborting it
> will not call cond_resched() but there is a reasonable expectation that
> the caller will schedule soon. If this is the reasoning then it should be
> included in the changelog. If it's an accident then leave the cond_resched()
> where it is.

Ok, looks I overlooked at it, will change it in next post.

> > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lru_lock, flags);
> > -	locked = true;
> > +	locked = compact_trylock_irqsave(&zone->lru_lock, &flags, cc);
> > +	if (!locked)
> > +		goto skip;
> 
> There is no need for the goto. No useful work has taken place at this
> point and there is no need to even trigger the tracepoint. Just return
> 0.

Just want to print out something in trace, but that's fine, I'll fix this.

--
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>

      reply	other threads:[~2012-09-06 12:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-06 10:44 [patch 2/2]compaction: check lock contention first before taking lock Shaohua Li
2012-09-06 12:24 ` Mel Gorman
2012-09-06 12:57   ` Shaohua Li [this message]

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=20120906125741.GB1025@kernel.org \
    --to=shli@kernel.org \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    /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.