Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Include LRU in page count

[Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>]

Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 
> On Monday 02 September 2002 01:08, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > Note that I changed the spin_lock in page_cache_release to a trylock, maybe
> > > it's worth checking out the effect on contention.  With a little head
> > > scratching we might be able to get rid of the spin_lock in lru_cache_add as
> > > well.  That leaves (I think) just the two big scan loops.  I've always felt
> > > it's silly to run more than one of either at the same time anyway.
> >
> > No way.  Take a look at http://samba.org/~anton/linux/2.5.30/
> >
> > That's 8-way power4, the workload is "dd from 7 disks
> > dd if=/dev/sd* of=/dev/null bs=1024k".
> >
> > The CPU load in this situation was dominated by the VM.  The LRU list and page
> > reclaim.  Spending more CPU in lru_cache_add() than in copy_to_user() is
> > pretty gross.
> 
> Are we looking at the same thing?  The cpu load there is dominated by cpu_idle,
> 89%.

Apart from that, dummy ;)  The absolute numbers are proportional
to IO bandwidth.  And 7/8ths of a scsi disk per CPU isn't much.

>  Anyway, if your point is that it makes sense to run shrink_cache or
> refill_inactive in parallel, I don't see it because they'll serialize on the
> lru lock anyway.  What would make sense is to make shink_cache nonblocking.

Well shrink_list() runs locklessly now.  But there remains a significant
cost in shrink_cache(), a little of which will be due to the hopefully-removable
page_cache_get() inside the lock.