From: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@openvz.org>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] mm: rework __isolate_lru_page() file/anon filter
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:20:03 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F51E243.5050804@openvz.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F51D5FB.4050106@openvz.org>
Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
>>
>>> This patch adds file/anon filter bits into isolate_mode_t,
>>> this allows to simplify checks in __isolate_lru_page().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov<khlebnikov@openvz.org>
>>
>> Almost-Acked-by: Hugh Dickins<hughd@google.com>
>>
>> with one whitespace nit, and one functional addition requested.
>>
>> I'm perfectly happy with your :?s myself, but some people do dislike
>> them. I'm happy with the switch alternative if it's as efficient:
>> something that surprised me very much when trying to get convincing
>> performance numbers for per-memcg per-zone lru_lock at home...
>>
>> ... __isolate_lru_page() featured astonishly high on the perf report
>> of streaming from files on ext4 on /dev/ram0 to /dev/null, coming
>> immediately below the obvious zeroing and copying: okay, the zeroing
>> and copying were around 30% each, and __isolate_lru_page() down around
>> 2% or below, but even so it seemed very odd that it should feature so
>> high, and any optimizations to it very welcome - unless it was purely
>> some bogus result.
>
> Actually ANON/FILE ACTIVE/INACTIVE checks does not required at non-lumpy reclaim
> (all pages are picked from right lru list) and compaction (it does not care).
> But seems like removing these two bit-checks cannot give noticeable performance gain.
>
> This patch can be postponed. It does not so important and
> it does not share context with other patches in this set.
Oops, no it cannot be dropped. Next patch "mm: push lru index into shrink_[in]active_list()"
kills "file" variable in isolate_lru_pages(). I sent v2 for this patch only.
>
>>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/mmzone.h | 4 ++++
>>> include/linux/swap.h | 2 +-
>>> mm/compaction.c | 5 +++--
>>> mm/vmscan.c | 27 +++++++++++++--------------
>>> 4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
>>> index eff4918..2fed935 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
>>> @@ -193,6 +193,10 @@ struct lruvec {
>>> #define ISOLATE_UNMAPPED ((__force isolate_mode_t)0x8)
>>> /* Isolate for asynchronous migration */
>>> #define ISOLATE_ASYNC_MIGRATE ((__force isolate_mode_t)0x10)
>>> +/* Isolate swap-backed pages */
>>> +#define ISOLATE_ANON ((__force isolate_mode_t)0x20)
>>> +/* Isolate file-backed pages */
>>> +#define ISOLATE_FILE ((__force isolate_mode_t)0x40)
>>
>> From the patch you can see that the #defines above yours used a
>> space where you have used a tab: better to use a space as above.
>>
>>> @@ -375,7 +376,7 @@ static isolate_migrate_t isolate_migratepages(struct zone *zone,
>>> mode |= ISOLATE_ASYNC_MIGRATE;
>>>
>>> /* Try isolate the page */
>>> - if (__isolate_lru_page(page, mode, 0) != 0)
>>> + if (__isolate_lru_page(page, mode) != 0)
>>> continue;
>>
>> I thought you were missing something there, but no, that's rather
>> the case you are simplifying. However...
>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
>>> index af6cfe7..1b70338 100644
>>> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
>>> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
>>> @@ -1520,6 +1511,10 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct mem_cgroup_zone *mz,
>>> isolate_mode |= ISOLATE_UNMAPPED;
>>> if (!sc->may_writepage)
>>> isolate_mode |= ISOLATE_CLEAN;
>>> + if (file)
>>> + isolate_mode |= ISOLATE_FILE;
>>> + else
>>> + isolate_mode |= ISOLATE_ANON;
>>
>> Above here, under "if (sc->reclaim_mode& RECLAIM_MODE_LUMPYRECLAIM)",
>> don't you need
>>
>> isolate_mode |= ISOLATE_ACTIVE | ISOLATE_FILE | ISOLATE_ANON;
>>
>> now to reproduce the same "all_lru_mode" behaviour as before?
>
> Yes, I missed this. Thanks.
>
>>
>> Hugh
>
> --
> 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:<a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org</a>
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-03 9:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-29 9:15 [PATCH v4 ch1 0/7] mm: some cleanup/rework before lru_lock splitting Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-02-29 9:15 ` [PATCH 1/7] mm/memcg: scanning_global_lru means mem_cgroup_disabled Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02 5:12 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-06 11:46 ` Glauber Costa
2012-02-29 9:15 ` [PATCH 2/7] mm/memcg: move reclaim_stat into lruvec Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02 5:14 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-02-29 9:15 ` [PATCH 3/7] mm: rework __isolate_lru_page() file/anon filter Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02 5:17 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02 5:51 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02 8:17 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02 8:53 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-06 11:57 ` Glauber Costa
2012-03-06 12:53 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-03 0:22 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-03 8:27 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-03 9:20 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov [this message]
2012-03-03 9:16 ` [PATCH 3/7 v2] " Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-05 0:27 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-07 3:22 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-08 5:30 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-09 2:06 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-09 7:16 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-10 0:04 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-10 6:55 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-10 9:46 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-15 1:47 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-03-15 6:03 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-15 23:58 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-29 9:15 ` [PATCH 4/7] mm: push lru index into shrink_[in]active_list() Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02 5:21 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-03 0:24 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-02-29 9:15 ` [PATCH 5/7] mm: rework reclaim_stat counters Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02 5:28 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02 6:11 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02 8:03 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-02-29 9:16 ` [PATCH 6/7] mm/memcg: rework inactive_ratio calculation Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02 5:31 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-03-02 6:24 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-08 5:36 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-02-29 9:16 ` [PATCH 7/7] mm/memcg: use vm_swappiness from target memory cgroup Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-03-02 5:32 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
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=4F51E243.5050804@openvz.org \
--to=khlebnikov@openvz.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jweiner@redhat.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/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).