From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>
To: Simon Jeons <simon.jeons@gmail.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@openvz.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, muming.wq@taobao.com
Subject: Re: [question] call mark_page_accessed() in minor fault
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:55:16 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130427075516.GA31442@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <517B79E6.5050204@gmail.com>
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 03:10:30PM +0800, Simon Jeons wrote:
> Hi Zheng,
> On 04/23/2013 09:49 PM, Zheng Liu wrote:
> >Hi Konstantin,
> >
> >On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 05:02:34PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >>Zheng Liu wrote:
> >>>Hi all,
> >>>
> >>>Recently we meet a performance regression about mmaped page. When we upgrade
> >>>our product system from 2.6.18 kernel to a latest kernel, such as 2.6.32 kernel,
> >>>we will find that mmaped pages are reclaimed very quickly. We found that when
> >>>we hit a minor fault mark_page_accessed() is called in 2.6.18 kernel, but in
> >>>2.6.32 kernel we don't call mark_page_accesed(). This means that mmaped pages
> >>>in 2.6.18 kernel are activated and moved into active list. While in 2.6.32
> >>>kernel mmaped pages are still kept in inactive list.
> >>>
> >>>So my question is why we call mark_page_accessed() in 2.6.18 kernel, but don't
> >>>call it in 2.6.32 kernel. Has any reason here?
> >>Behavior was changed in commit
> >>v2.6.28-6130-gbf3f3bc "mm: don't mark_page_accessed in fault path"
> >Thanks for pointing it out.
> >
> >>Please see also commits
> >>v3.2-4876-g34dbc67 "vmscan: promote shared file mapped pages" and
> >Yes, I will give it try. If I understand correctly, this commit is
> >useful for multi-processes program that access a shared mmaped page,
> >but that could not be useful for us because our program is multi-thread.
>
> What's the difference behavior between multi-processes and
> multi-thread in this case?
Hi Simon,
Sorry, I am not a MM expert. IIUC, if we have two processes, this
mmaped page will be moved into active list. But if we only have two
threads, reference_ptes == 1, and this mmaped page won't be moved into
active list. Finally this page could be evicted. Am I missing
something?
Thanks,
- Zheng
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-27 7:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-23 12:25 [question] call mark_page_accessed() in minor fault Zheng Liu
2013-04-23 13:02 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2013-04-23 13:49 ` Zheng Liu
2013-04-27 7:10 ` Simon Jeons
2013-04-27 7:55 ` Zheng Liu [this message]
2013-04-27 7:40 ` Simon Jeons
2013-04-27 11:14 ` Zheng Liu
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=20130427075516.GA31442@gmail.com \
--to=gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com \
--cc=khlebnikov@openvz.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=muming.wq@taobao.com \
--cc=simon.jeons@gmail.com \
/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.