Re: [PATCH 2/2 v3]mm: batch activate_page() to reduce lock contention

[Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>]

On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 14:10 +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:47 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro
> > <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > >> > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pagevec, activate_page_pvecs);
> > >> >
> > >> > Why do we have to handle SMP and !SMP?
> > >> > We have been not separated in case of pagevec using in swap.c.
> > >> > If you have a special reason, please write it down.
> > >> this is to reduce memory footprint as suggested by akpm.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Shaohua
> > >
> > > Hi Shaouhua,
> > >
> > > I agree with you. But, please please avoid full quote. I don't think
> > > it is so much difficult work. ;-)
> > 
> > I didn't want to add new comment in the code but want to know why we
> > have to care of activate_page_pvecs specially. I think it's not a
> > matter of difficult work or easy work. If new thing is different with
> > existing things, at least some comment in description makes review
> > easy.
> > 
> > If it's memory footprint issue, should we care of other pagevec to
> > reduce memory footprint in non-smp? If it is, it would be a TODO list
> > for consistency and memory footprint.
> 
> Yeah. indeed.
> Shaoua, If my remember is correct, your previous version has code size
> comparision result. could you resurrect it?
sure thing. I'll add it in next post.

Thanks,
Shaohua

--
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>