Re: [PATCH 1/2] page-allocator: Split per-cpu list into one-list-per-migrate-type

[Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Mel Gorman<mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:00:25PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Minchan Kim<minchan.kim@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi, Mel.
>> >
>> > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:44:26 +0100
>> > Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Currently the per-cpu page allocator searches the PCP list for pages of the
>> >> correct migrate-type to reduce the possibility of pages being inappropriate
>> >> placed from a fragmentation perspective. This search is potentially expensive
>> >> in a fast-path and undesirable. Splitting the per-cpu list into multiple
>> >> lists increases the size of a per-cpu structure and this was potentially
>> >> a major problem at the time the search was introduced. These problem has
>> >> been mitigated as now only the necessary number of structures is allocated
>> >> for the running system.
>> >>
>> >> This patch replaces a list search in the per-cpu allocator with one list per
>> >> migrate type. The potential snag with this approach is when bulk freeing
>> >> pages. We round-robin free pages based on migrate type which has little
>> >> bearing on the cache hotness of the page and potentially checks empty lists
>> >> repeatedly in the event the majority of PCP pages are of one type.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
>> >> Acked-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>

>> >>   */
>> >> -static void free_pages_bulk(struct zone *zone, int count,
>> >> -                                     struct list_head *list, int order)
>> >> +static void free_pcppages_bulk(struct zone *zone, int count,
>> >> +                                     struct per_cpu_pages *pcp)
>> >>  {
>> >> +     int migratetype = 0;
>> >> +
>> >
>> > How about caching the last sucess migratetype
>> > with 'per_cpu_pages->last_alloc_type'?
>>                                          ^^^^
>>                                          free
>> > I think it could prevent a litte spinning empty list.
>>
>> Anyway, Ignore me.
>> I didn't see your next patch.
>>
>
> Nah, it's a reasonable suggestion. Patch 2 was one effort to reduce
> spinning but the comment was in patch 1 in case someone thought of
> something better. I tried what you suggested before but it didn't work
> out. For any sort of workload that varies the type of allocation (very
> frequent), it didn't reduce spinning significantly.

Thanks for good information.

> --
> Mel Gorman
> Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
> University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
>



-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim

--
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>