From: simon.jeons@gmail.com (Simon Jeons)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] mm: Fixup the condition whether the page cache is free
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:05:56 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5137E7F4.1060509@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130306194703.GA1953@cmpxchg.org>
Hi Johannes,
On 03/07/2013 03:47 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 09:04:55AM +0800, Simon Jeons wrote:
>> Hi Johannes,
>> On 03/04/2013 11:09 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 09:54:26AM +0800, Li Haifeng wrote:
>>>> When a page cache is to reclaim, we should to decide whether the page
>>>> cache is free.
>>>> IMO, the condition whether a page cache is free should be 3 in page
>>>> frame reclaiming. The reason lists as below.
>>>>
>>>> When page is allocated, the page->_count is 1(code fragment is code-1 ).
>>>> And when the page is allocated for reading files from extern disk, the
>>>> page->_count will increment 1 by page_cache_get() in
>>>> add_to_page_cache_locked()(code fragment is code-2). When the page is to
>>>> reclaim, the isolated LRU list also increase the page->_count(code
>>>> fragment is code-3).
>>> The page count is initialized to 1, but that does not stay with the
>>> object. It's a reference that is passed to the allocating task, which
>>> drops it again when it's done with the page. I.e. the pattern is like
>>> this:
>>>
>>> instantiation:
>>> page = page_cache_alloc() /* instantiator reference -> 1 */
>>> add_to_page_cache(page, mapping, offset)
>>> get_page(page) /* page cache reference -> 2 */
>>> lru_cache_add(page)
>>> get_page(page) /* pagevec reference -> 3 */
>>> /* ...initiate read, write, associate buffers, ... */
>>> page_cache_release(page) /* drop instantiator reference -> 2 + private */
>>>
>>> reclaim:
>>> lru_add_drain()
>>> page_cache_release(page) /* drop pagevec reference -> 1 + private */
>> IIUC, when add page to lru will lead to add to pagevec firstly, and
>> pagevec will take one reference, so if lru will take over the
>> reference taken by pagevec when page transmit from pagevec to lru?
>> or just drop the reference and lru will not take reference for page?
> The LRU does not hold a reference, it would not make sense. The
> pagevec only needs one because it would be awkward to remove a
> concurrently freed page out of a pagevec, but unlinking a page from
> the LRU is easy. See mm/swap.c::__page_cache_release() and friends.
Since pagevec is per cpu, when can remove a concurrently freed page out
of a pagevec happen?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Simon Jeons <simon.jeons@gmail.com>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Li Haifeng <omycle@gmail.com>,
open@kvack.org, list@kvack.org,
MEMORY MANAGEMENT <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Fixup the condition whether the page cache is free
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:05:56 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5137E7F4.1060509@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130306194703.GA1953@cmpxchg.org>
Hi Johannes,
On 03/07/2013 03:47 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 09:04:55AM +0800, Simon Jeons wrote:
>> Hi Johannes,
>> On 03/04/2013 11:09 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 09:54:26AM +0800, Li Haifeng wrote:
>>>> When a page cache is to reclaim, we should to decide whether the page
>>>> cache is free.
>>>> IMO, the condition whether a page cache is free should be 3 in page
>>>> frame reclaiming. The reason lists as below.
>>>>
>>>> When page is allocated, the page->_count is 1(code fragment is code-1 ).
>>>> And when the page is allocated for reading files from extern disk, the
>>>> page->_count will increment 1 by page_cache_get() in
>>>> add_to_page_cache_locked()(code fragment is code-2). When the page is to
>>>> reclaim, the isolated LRU list also increase the page->_count(code
>>>> fragment is code-3).
>>> The page count is initialized to 1, but that does not stay with the
>>> object. It's a reference that is passed to the allocating task, which
>>> drops it again when it's done with the page. I.e. the pattern is like
>>> this:
>>>
>>> instantiation:
>>> page = page_cache_alloc() /* instantiator reference -> 1 */
>>> add_to_page_cache(page, mapping, offset)
>>> get_page(page) /* page cache reference -> 2 */
>>> lru_cache_add(page)
>>> get_page(page) /* pagevec reference -> 3 */
>>> /* ...initiate read, write, associate buffers, ... */
>>> page_cache_release(page) /* drop instantiator reference -> 2 + private */
>>>
>>> reclaim:
>>> lru_add_drain()
>>> page_cache_release(page) /* drop pagevec reference -> 1 + private */
>> IIUC, when add page to lru will lead to add to pagevec firstly, and
>> pagevec will take one reference, so if lru will take over the
>> reference taken by pagevec when page transmit from pagevec to lru?
>> or just drop the reference and lru will not take reference for page?
> The LRU does not hold a reference, it would not make sense. The
> pagevec only needs one because it would be awkward to remove a
> concurrently freed page out of a pagevec, but unlinking a page from
> the LRU is easy. See mm/swap.c::__page_cache_release() and friends.
Since pagevec is per cpu, when can remove a concurrently freed page out
of a pagevec happen?
--
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:[~2013-03-07 1:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-04 1:54 [PATCH] mm: Fixup the condition whether the page cache is free Li Haifeng
2013-03-04 1:54 ` Li Haifeng
2013-03-04 1:54 ` Li Haifeng
2013-03-04 15:09 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-03-04 15:09 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-03-04 15:09 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-03-05 1:51 ` Li Haifeng
2013-03-05 1:51 ` Li Haifeng
2013-03-05 1:51 ` Li Haifeng
2013-03-06 1:04 ` Simon Jeons
2013-03-06 1:04 ` Simon Jeons
2013-03-06 19:47 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-03-06 19:47 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-03-07 1:05 ` Simon Jeons [this message]
2013-03-07 1:05 ` Simon Jeons
2013-03-08 2:13 ` Simon Jeons
2013-03-08 2:13 ` Simon Jeons
2013-03-08 2:37 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-03-08 2:37 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-03-08 2:48 ` Simon Jeons
2013-03-08 2:48 ` Simon Jeons
2013-03-08 3:16 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-03-08 3:16 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-03-12 3:19 ` Simon Jeons
2013-03-12 3:19 ` Simon Jeons
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=5137E7F4.1060509@gmail.com \
--to=simon.jeons@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.