From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de,
tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [v4][PATCH 1/6] mm: swap: defer clearing of page_private() for swap cache pages
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 07:53:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51ACADCD.70904@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130603054048.GA27858@blaptop>
On 06/02/2013 10:40 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > diff -puN mm/vmscan.c~__delete_from_swap_cache-dont-clear-page-private mm/vmscan.c
>> > --- linux.git/mm/vmscan.c~__delete_from_swap_cache-dont-clear-page-private 2013-05-30 16:07:50.632079492 -0700
>> > +++ linux.git-davehans/mm/vmscan.c 2013-05-30 16:07:50.637079712 -0700
>> > @@ -494,6 +494,8 @@ static int __remove_mapping(struct addre
>> > __delete_from_swap_cache(page);
>> > spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
>> > swapcache_free(swap, page);
>> > + set_page_private(page, 0);
>> > + ClearPageSwapCache(page);
> It it worth to support non-atomic version of ClearPageSwapCache?
Just for this, probably not.
It does look like a site where it would be theoretically safe to use
non-atomic flag operations since the page is on a one-way trip to the
allocator at this point and the __clear_page_locked() now happens _just_
after this code.
But, personally, I'm happy to leave it as-is. The atomic vs. non-atomic
flags look to me like a micro-optimization that we should use when we
_know_ there will be some tangible benefit. Otherwise, they're just
something extra for developers to trip over and cause very subtle bugs.
--
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: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de,
tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [v4][PATCH 1/6] mm: swap: defer clearing of page_private() for swap cache pages
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 07:53:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51ACADCD.70904@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130603054048.GA27858@blaptop>
On 06/02/2013 10:40 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > diff -puN mm/vmscan.c~__delete_from_swap_cache-dont-clear-page-private mm/vmscan.c
>> > --- linux.git/mm/vmscan.c~__delete_from_swap_cache-dont-clear-page-private 2013-05-30 16:07:50.632079492 -0700
>> > +++ linux.git-davehans/mm/vmscan.c 2013-05-30 16:07:50.637079712 -0700
>> > @@ -494,6 +494,8 @@ static int __remove_mapping(struct addre
>> > __delete_from_swap_cache(page);
>> > spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
>> > swapcache_free(swap, page);
>> > + set_page_private(page, 0);
>> > + ClearPageSwapCache(page);
> It it worth to support non-atomic version of ClearPageSwapCache?
Just for this, probably not.
It does look like a site where it would be theoretically safe to use
non-atomic flag operations since the page is on a one-way trip to the
allocator at this point and the __clear_page_locked() now happens _just_
after this code.
But, personally, I'm happy to leave it as-is. The atomic vs. non-atomic
flags look to me like a micro-optimization that we should use when we
_know_ there will be some tangible benefit. Otherwise, they're just
something extra for developers to trip over and cause very subtle bugs.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-03 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-31 18:38 [v4][PATCH 0/6] mm: vmscan: Batch page reclamation under shink_page_list Dave Hansen
2013-05-31 18:38 ` Dave Hansen
2013-05-31 18:38 ` [v4][PATCH 1/6] mm: swap: defer clearing of page_private() for swap cache pages Dave Hansen
2013-05-31 18:38 ` Dave Hansen
2013-06-03 5:40 ` Minchan Kim
2013-06-03 5:40 ` Minchan Kim
2013-06-03 14:53 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2013-06-03 14:53 ` Dave Hansen
2013-06-04 4:41 ` Minchan Kim
2013-06-04 4:41 ` Minchan Kim
2013-05-31 18:38 ` [v4][PATCH 2/6] mm: swap: make 'struct page' and swp_entry_t variants of swapcache_free() Dave Hansen
2013-05-31 18:38 ` Dave Hansen
2013-06-03 6:13 ` Minchan Kim
2013-06-03 6:13 ` Minchan Kim
2013-06-03 15:55 ` Dave Hansen
2013-06-03 15:55 ` Dave Hansen
2013-05-31 18:38 ` [v4][PATCH 3/6] mm: vmscan: break up __remove_mapping() Dave Hansen
2013-05-31 18:38 ` Dave Hansen
2013-06-03 8:28 ` Minchan Kim
2013-06-03 8:28 ` Minchan Kim
2013-05-31 18:39 ` [v4][PATCH 4/6] mm: vmscan: break out mapping "freepage" code Dave Hansen
2013-05-31 18:39 ` Dave Hansen
2013-06-03 8:35 ` Minchan Kim
2013-06-03 8:35 ` Minchan Kim
2013-05-31 18:39 ` [v4][PATCH 5/6] mm: vmscan: batch shrink_page_list() locking operations Dave Hansen
2013-05-31 18:39 ` Dave Hansen
2013-05-31 18:39 ` [v4][PATCH 6/6] mm: vmscan: drain batch list during long operations Dave Hansen
2013-05-31 18:39 ` Dave Hansen
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=51ACADCD.70904@sr71.net \
--to=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.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.