All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@openvz.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7 v2] mm: rework __isolate_lru_page() file/anon filter
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:46:06 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F5B22DE.4020402@openvz.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F5AFAF0.6060608@openvz.org>

Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually __isolate_lru_page() even little bit bigger
>>
>> I was coming to realize that it must be your page_lru()ing:
>> although it's dressed up in one line, there's several branches there.
>
> Yes, but I think we can optimize page_lru(): we can prepare ready-to-use
> page lru index in lower bits of page->flags, if we swap page flags and split
> LRU_UNEVICTABLE into FILE/ANON parts.
>
>>
>> I think you'll find you have a clear winner at last, if you just pass
>> lru on down as third arg to __isolate_lru_page(), where file used to
>> be passed, instead of re-evaluating it inside.
>>
>> shrink callers already have the lru, and compaction works it out
>> immediately afterwards.
>
> No, for non-lumpy isolation we don't need this check at all,
> because all pages already picked from right lru list.
>
> I'll send separate patch for this (on top v5 patchset), after meditation =)

Heh, looks like we don't need these checks at all:
without RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM we isolate only pages from right lru,
with RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM we isolate pages from all evictable lru.
Thus we should check only PageUnevictable() on lumpy reclaim.

>
>>
>> Though we do need to be careful: the lumpy case would then have to
>> pass page_lru(cursor_page).  Oh, actually no (though it would deserve
>> a comment): since the lumpy case selects LRU_ALL_EVICTABLE, it's
>> irrelevant what it passes for lru, so might as well stick with
>> the one passed down.  Though you may decide I'm being too tricky
>> there, and prefer to calculate page_lru(cursor_page) anyway, it
>> not being the hottest path.
>>
>> Whether you'd still want page_lru(page) __always_inline, I don't know.
>>
>> Hugh
>
> --
> 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>

--
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>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@openvz.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7 v2] mm: rework __isolate_lru_page() file/anon filter
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:46:06 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F5B22DE.4020402@openvz.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F5AFAF0.6060608@openvz.org>

Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually __isolate_lru_page() even little bit bigger
>>
>> I was coming to realize that it must be your page_lru()ing:
>> although it's dressed up in one line, there's several branches there.
>
> Yes, but I think we can optimize page_lru(): we can prepare ready-to-use
> page lru index in lower bits of page->flags, if we swap page flags and split
> LRU_UNEVICTABLE into FILE/ANON parts.
>
>>
>> I think you'll find you have a clear winner at last, if you just pass
>> lru on down as third arg to __isolate_lru_page(), where file used to
>> be passed, instead of re-evaluating it inside.
>>
>> shrink callers already have the lru, and compaction works it out
>> immediately afterwards.
>
> No, for non-lumpy isolation we don't need this check at all,
> because all pages already picked from right lru list.
>
> I'll send separate patch for this (on top v5 patchset), after meditation =)

Heh, looks like we don't need these checks at all:
without RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM we isolate only pages from right lru,
with RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM we isolate pages from all evictable lru.
Thus we should check only PageUnevictable() on lumpy reclaim.

>
>>
>> Though we do need to be careful: the lumpy case would then have to
>> pass page_lru(cursor_page).  Oh, actually no (though it would deserve
>> a comment): since the lumpy case selects LRU_ALL_EVICTABLE, it's
>> irrelevant what it passes for lru, so might as well stick with
>> the one passed down.  Though you may decide I'm being too tricky
>> there, and prefer to calculate page_lru(cursor_page) anyway, it
>> not being the hottest path.
>>
>> Whether you'd still want page_lru(page) __always_inline, I don't know.
>>
>> Hugh
>
> --
> 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>


  reply	other threads:[~2012-03-10  9:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-02-29  9:15 [PATCH v4 ch1 0/7] mm: some cleanup/rework before lru_lock splitting Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-02-29  9:15 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-02-29  9:15 ` [PATCH 1/7] mm/memcg: scanning_global_lru means mem_cgroup_disabled Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-02-29  9:15   ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  5:12   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  5:12     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-06 11:46     ` Glauber Costa
2012-03-06 11:46       ` Glauber Costa
2012-02-29  9:15 ` [PATCH 2/7] mm/memcg: move reclaim_stat into lruvec Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-02-29  9:15   ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  5:14   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  5:14     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-02-29  9:15 ` [PATCH 3/7] mm: rework __isolate_lru_page() file/anon filter Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-02-29  9:15   ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  5:17   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  5:17     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  5:51     ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  5:51       ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  8:17       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  8:17         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  8:53         ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  8:53           ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-06 11:57         ` Glauber Costa
2012-03-06 11:57           ` Glauber Costa
2012-03-06 12:53           ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-06 12:53             ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-03  0:22   ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-03  0:22     ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-03  8:27     ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-03  8:27       ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-03  9:20       ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-03  9:20         ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-03  9:16   ` [PATCH 3/7 v2] " Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-03  9:16     ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-05  0:27     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-05  0:27       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-07  3:22     ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-07  3:22       ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-08  5:30       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-08  5:30         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-09  2:06         ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-09  2:06           ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-09  7:16           ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-09  7:16             ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-10  0:04             ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-10  0:04               ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-10  6:55               ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-10  6:55                 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-10  9:46                 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov [this message]
2012-03-10  9:46                   ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-15  1:47                   ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-15  1:47                     ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-15  6:03                     ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-15  6:03                       ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-15 23:58                       ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-15 23:58                         ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-29  9:15 ` [PATCH 4/7] mm: push lru index into shrink_[in]active_list() Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-02-29  9:15   ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  5:21   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  5:21     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-03  0:24   ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-03  0:24     ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-29  9:15 ` [PATCH 5/7] mm: rework reclaim_stat counters Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-02-29  9:15   ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  5:28   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  5:28     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  6:11     ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  6:11       ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  8:03       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  8:03         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-02-29  9:16 ` [PATCH 6/7] mm/memcg: rework inactive_ratio calculation Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-02-29  9:16   ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  5:31   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  5:31     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  6:24     ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  6:24       ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-08  5:36       ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-08  5:36         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-02-29  9:16 ` [PATCH 7/7] mm/memcg: use vm_swappiness from target memory cgroup Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-02-29  9:16   ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02  5:32   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02  5:32     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki

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=4F5B22DE.4020402@openvz.org \
    --to=khlebnikov@openvz.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=jweiner@redhat.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    /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.