From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx121.postini.com [74.125.245.121]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F24C6B0075 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:59:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4F0E05F6.30105@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:58:14 -0500 From: Rik van Riel MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -mm] make swapin readahead skip over holes References: <20120111143044.3c538d46@cuia.bos.redhat.com> <20120111205041.GE24386@cmpxchg.org> <4F0DFF64.4040704@redhat.com> <20120111214242.GF24386@cmpxchg.org> In-Reply-To: <20120111214242.GF24386@cmpxchg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Johannes Weiner Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, KOSAKI Motohiro , akpm@linux-foundation.org, mel@csn.ul.ie, minchan.kim@gmail.com On 01/11/2012 04:42 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 04:30:12PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: >> On 01/11/2012 04:10 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 02:30:44PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: >>>> Ever since abandoning the virtual scan of processes, for scalability >>>> reasons, swap space has been a little more fragmented than before. >>>> This can lead to the situation where a large memory user is killed, >>>> swap space ends up full of "holes" and swapin readahead is totally >>>> ineffective. >>>> >>>> On my home system, after killing a leaky firefox it took over an >>>> hour to page just under 2GB of memory back in, slowing the virtual >>>> machines down to a crawl. >>>> >>>> This patch makes swapin readahead simply skip over holes, instead >>>> of stopping at them. This allows the system to swap things back in >>>> at rates of several MB/second, instead of a few hundred kB/second. >>>> >>>> The checks done in valid_swaphandles are already done in >>>> read_swap_cache_async as well, allowing us to remove a fair amount >>>> of code. >>> >>> __swap_duplicate() also checks for whether the offset is within the >>> swap device range. Do you think we could remove get_swap_cluster() >>> altogether and just try reading the aligned page_cluster range? >> >> That is how I implemented it originally, but we need >> to take the swap_lock so it is cleaner to implement >> a helper function in swapfile.c :) > > AFAICS, it's only needed to validate the offset against si->max, but > this too is done in __swap_duplicate(). > > What's otherwise left is just rounding down swp_offset(entry) and > adding 1<< page_cluster to it, that shouldn't need the swap_lock? > > Am I missing something? Good point. I guess we could get rid of get_swap_cluster afterall and let __swap_duplicate deal with everything. Andrew, Mel, is that ok with you? -- 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: email@kvack.org