Re: [RFC 1/3] non-resident page tracking

Marcelo Tosatti
2005-08-09T21:13:05Z

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 09:15:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:25 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Hi Rik,
> >
> > Two hopefully useful comments:
> >
> > i) ARC and its variants requires additional information about page
> > replacement (namely whether the page has been reclaimed from the L1 or
> > L2 lists).
> >
> > How costly would it be to add this information to the hash table?
> >
> I've been thinking on reserving another word in the cache-line and use
> that as a bit-array to keep that information; the only problems with
> that would be atomicy of the {bucket,bit} tuple and very large
> cachelines where NUM_NR > 32.

The chance for a lookup hit to happen on a hash value which is in a
modified-state in a different CPU's cacheline should be pretty small
(depends on the architecture also, but shouldnt be much of an issue I
guess).

Hoping on that, guaranteed validity of data is not necessary, it is OK
to be incorrect occasionally.

> > ii) From my reading of the patch, the provided "distance" information is
> > relative to each hash bucket. I'm unable to understand the distance metric
> > being useful if measured per-hash-bucket instead of globally?
>
> The assumption is that IFF the hash function has good distribution
> properties the per bucket distance is a good approximation of
> (distance >> nonres_shift).

Well, not really "good approximation" it sounds to me, the sensibility
goes down to L1_CACHE_LINE/sizeof(u32), which is:

- 8 on 32-byte cacheline
- 16 on 64-byte cacheline
- 32 on 128-byte cacheline

Right?

So the (nice!) refault histogram gets limited to those values?

> > PS: Since remember_page() is always called with the zone->lru_lock held,
> > the preempt_disable/enable pair is unecessary at the moment... still,
> > might be better to leave it there for safety reasons.
> >
>
> There being multiple zones; owning zone->lru_lock does not guarantee
> uniqueness on the remember_page() path as its a global structure.

True, but it guarantees disabled preemption. No big deal...