From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E27F6B0083 for ; Sun, 10 May 2009 05:35:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:35:41 +0800 From: Wu Fengguang Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] vmscan: make mapped executable pages the first class citizen Message-ID: <20090510093541.GB7651@localhost> References: <20090503031539.GC5702@localhost> <1241432635.7620.4732.camel@twins> <20090507121101.GB20934@localhost> <20090507151039.GA2413@cmpxchg.org> <20090507134410.0618b308.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090508081608.GA25117@localhost> <20090508125859.210a2a25.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090508230045.5346bd32@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <2f11576a0905100159m32c36a9ep9fb7cc5604c60b2@mail.gmail.com> <1241946446.6317.42.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1241946446.6317.42.camel@laptop> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , Alan Cox , Andrew Morton , "hannes@cmpxchg.org" , "riel@redhat.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "tytso@mit.edu" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "elladan@eskimo.com" , "npiggin@suse.de" , "cl@linux-foundation.org" , "minchan.kim@gmail.com" List-ID: On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 05:07:26PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sun, 2009-05-10 at 17:59 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > 2009/5/9 Alan Cox : > > >> The patch seems reasonable but the changelog and the (non-existent) > > >> design documentation could do with a touch-up. > > > > > > Is it right that I as a user can do things like mmap my database > > > PROT_EXEC to get better database numbers by making other > > > stuff swap first ? > > > > > > You seem to be giving everyone a "nice my process up" hack. > > > > How about this? > > if priority < DEF_PRIORITY-2, aggressive lumpy reclaim in > > shrink_inactive_list() already > > reclaim the active page forcely. > > then, this patch don't change kernel reclaim policy. > > > > anyway, user process non-changable preventing "nice my process up > > hack" seems makes sense to me. > > > > test result: > > > > echo 100 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio > > echo 100 > /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio > > run modified qsbench (use mmap(PROT_EXEC) instead malloc) > > > > active2active vs active2inactive ratio > > before 5:5 > > after 1:9 > > > > please don't ask performance number. I haven't reproduce Wu's patch > > improvemnt ;) > > > > Wu, What do you think? > > I don't think this is desirable, like Andrew already said, there's tons > of ways to defeat any of this and we've so far always priorized mappings > over !mappings. Limiting this to only PROT_EXEC mappings is already less > than it used to be. Yeah. One thing I realized in readahead is that *anything* can happen. When it comes to caching, app/user behaviors are *far more* unpredictable. We can make the heuristics as large as 1000LOC (and leave users and ourselves lost in the mist) or as simple as 100LOC (and make it happy to hacking or even abuse). -- 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: email@kvack.org