From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751637Ab2CJGzu (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:55:50 -0500 Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:59061 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750712Ab2CJGzt (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:55:49 -0500 Message-ID: <4F5AFAF0.6060608@openvz.org> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:55:44 +0400 From: Konstantin Khlebnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120217 Firefox/10.0.2 Iceape/2.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hugh Dickins CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7 v2] mm: rework __isolate_lru_page() file/anon filter References: <20120229091547.29236.28230.stgit@zurg> <20120303091327.17599.80336.stgit@zurg> <20120308143034.f3521b1e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <4F59AE3C.5040200@openvz.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Fri, 9 Mar 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: >> Hugh Dickins wrote: >>> >>> I like very much the look of what he's come up with, but I'm still >>> puzzling over why it barely makes any improvement to __isolate_lru_page(): >>> seems significantly inferior (in code size terms) to his original (which >>> I imagine Glauber's compromise would be equivalent to). >>> >>> At some point I ought to give up on niggling about this, >>> but I haven't quite got there yet. >> >> (with if()) >> $ ./scripts/bloat-o-meter built-in.o built-in.o-v1 >> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 2/1 up/down: 32/-20 (12) >> function old new delta >> static.shrink_active_list 837 853 +16 >> shrink_inactive_list 1259 1275 +16 >> static.isolate_lru_pages 1055 1035 -20 >> >> (with switch()) >> $ ./scripts/bloat-o-meter built-in.o built-in.o-v2 >> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 4/2 up/down: 111/-23 (88) >> function old new delta >> __isolate_lru_page 301 377 +76 >> static.shrink_active_list 837 853 +16 >> shrink_inactive_list 1259 1275 +16 >> page_evictable 170 173 +3 >> __remove_mapping 322 319 -3 >> static.isolate_lru_pages 1055 1035 -20 >> >> (without __always_inline on page_lru()) >> $ ./scripts/bloat-o-meter built-in.o built-in.o-v5-noinline >> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 5/2 up/down: 93/-23 (70) >> function old new delta >> __isolate_lru_page 301 333 +32 >> isolate_lru_page 359 385 +26 >> static.shrink_active_list 837 853 +16 >> putback_inactive_pages 635 651 +16 >> page_evictable 170 173 +3 >> __remove_mapping 322 319 -3 >> static.isolate_lru_pages 1055 1035 -20 >> >> $ ./scripts/bloat-o-meter built-in.o built-in.o-v5 >> add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 3/4 up/down: 35/-67 (-32) >> function old new delta >> static.shrink_active_list 837 853 +16 >> __isolate_lru_page 301 317 +16 >> page_evictable 170 173 +3 >> __remove_mapping 322 319 -3 >> mem_cgroup_lru_del 73 65 -8 >> static.isolate_lru_pages 1055 1035 -20 >> __mem_cgroup_commit_charge 676 640 -36 >> >> Actually __isolate_lru_page() even little bit bigger > > I was coming to realize that it must be your page_lru()ing: > although it's dressed up in one line, there's several branches there. Yes, but I think we can optimize page_lru(): we can prepare ready-to-use page lru index in lower bits of page->flags, if we swap page flags and split LRU_UNEVICTABLE into FILE/ANON parts. > > I think you'll find you have a clear winner at last, if you just pass > lru on down as third arg to __isolate_lru_page(), where file used to > be passed, instead of re-evaluating it inside. > > shrink callers already have the lru, and compaction works it out > immediately afterwards. No, for non-lumpy isolation we don't need this check at all, because all pages already picked from right lru list. I'll send separate patch for this (on top v5 patchset), after meditation =) > > Though we do need to be careful: the lumpy case would then have to > pass page_lru(cursor_page). Oh, actually no (though it would deserve > a comment): since the lumpy case selects LRU_ALL_EVICTABLE, it's > irrelevant what it passes for lru, so might as well stick with > the one passed down. Though you may decide I'm being too tricky > there, and prefer to calculate page_lru(cursor_page) anyway, it > not being the hottest path. > > Whether you'd still want page_lru(page) __always_inline, I don't know. > > Hugh