From: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, aarcange@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2]compaction: check lock contention first before taking lock
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:57:41 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120906125741.GB1025@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120906122449.GR11266@suse.de>
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 01:24:49PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 06:44:29PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > isolate_migratepages_range will take zone->lru_lock first and check if the lock
> > is contented, if yes, it will release the lock. This isn't efficient. If the
> > lock is truly contented, a lock/unlock pair will increase the lock contention.
> > We'd better check if the lock is contended first. compact_trylock_irqsave
> > perfectly meets the requirement.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fusionio.com>
> > ---
> > mm/compaction.c | 7 ++++---
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux/mm/compaction.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/mm/compaction.c 2012-09-06 14:46:13.923144263 +0800
> > +++ linux/mm/compaction.c 2012-09-06 14:46:58.118588574 +0800
> > @@ -295,9 +295,9 @@ isolate_migratepages_range(struct zone *
> > }
> >
> > /* Time to isolate some pages for migration */
> > - cond_resched();
>
> Why did you remove the cond_resched()? I expect it's because
> compact_checklock_irqsave() does a need_resched() check and if it is true
> will either call cond_resched() or abort compaction. If it is aborting it
> will not call cond_resched() but there is a reasonable expectation that
> the caller will schedule soon. If this is the reasoning then it should be
> included in the changelog. If it's an accident then leave the cond_resched()
> where it is.
Ok, looks I overlooked at it, will change it in next post.
> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lru_lock, flags);
> > - locked = true;
> > + locked = compact_trylock_irqsave(&zone->lru_lock, &flags, cc);
> > + if (!locked)
> > + goto skip;
>
> There is no need for the goto. No useful work has taken place at this
> point and there is no need to even trigger the tracepoint. Just return
> 0.
Just want to print out something in trace, but that's fine, I'll fix this.
--
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>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-06 12:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-06 10:44 [patch 2/2]compaction: check lock contention first before taking lock Shaohua Li
2012-09-06 12:24 ` Mel Gorman
2012-09-06 12:57 ` Shaohua Li [this message]
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=20120906125741.GB1025@kernel.org \
--to=shli@kernel.org \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).