From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm, vmscan: Batch removal of mappings under a single lock during reclaim
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:07:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160916140707.GI5020@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160916132506.GB5035@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 03:25:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:59:32AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Pages unmapped during reclaim acquire/release the mapping->tree_lock for
> > every single page. There are two cases when it's likely that pages at the
> > tail of the LRU share the same mapping -- large amounts of IO to/from a
> > single file and swapping. This patch acquires the mapping->tree_lock for
> > multiple page removals.
>
> So, once upon a time, in a galaxy far away,.. I did a concurrent
> pagecache patch set that replaced the tree_lock with a per page bit-
> spinlock and fine grained locking in the radix tree.
>
> I know the mm has changed quite a bit since, but would such an approach
> still be feasible?
>
> I cannot seem to find an online reference to a 'complete' version of
> that patch set, but I did find the OLS paper on it and I did find some
> copies on my local machines.
https://www.kernel.org/doc/ols/2007/ols2007v2-pages-311-318.pdf
--
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>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm, vmscan: Batch removal of mappings under a single lock during reclaim
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 16:07:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160916140707.GI5020@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160916132506.GB5035@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 03:25:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:59:32AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Pages unmapped during reclaim acquire/release the mapping->tree_lock for
> > every single page. There are two cases when it's likely that pages at the
> > tail of the LRU share the same mapping -- large amounts of IO to/from a
> > single file and swapping. This patch acquires the mapping->tree_lock for
> > multiple page removals.
>
> So, once upon a time, in a galaxy far away,.. I did a concurrent
> pagecache patch set that replaced the tree_lock with a per page bit-
> spinlock and fine grained locking in the radix tree.
>
> I know the mm has changed quite a bit since, but would such an approach
> still be feasible?
>
> I cannot seem to find an online reference to a 'complete' version of
> that patch set, but I did find the OLS paper on it and I did find some
> copies on my local machines.
https://www.kernel.org/doc/ols/2007/ols2007v2-pages-311-318.pdf
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-16 14:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-09 9:59 [RFC PATCH 0/4] Reduce tree_lock contention during swap and reclaim of a single file v1 Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 9:59 ` Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 9:59 ` [PATCH 1/4] mm, vmscan: Batch removal of mappings under a single lock during reclaim Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 9:59 ` Mel Gorman
2016-09-16 13:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-16 13:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-16 14:07 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2016-09-16 14:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-16 18:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-09-16 18:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-09-17 1:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-17 1:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-09 9:59 ` [PATCH 2/4] block, brd: Treat storage as non-rotational Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 9:59 ` Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 9:59 ` [PATCH 3/4] mm, vmscan: Stall kswapd if contending on tree_lock Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 9:59 ` Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 9:59 ` [PATCH 4/4] mm, vmscan: Potentially stall direct reclaimers on tree_lock contention Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 9:59 ` Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 15:31 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] Reduce tree_lock contention during swap and reclaim of a single file v1 Linus Torvalds
2016-09-09 15:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-09-09 16:19 ` Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 16:19 ` Mel Gorman
2016-09-09 18:16 ` Huang, Ying
2016-09-09 18:16 ` Huang, Ying
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=20160916140707.GI5020@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.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.