On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 07:24:53PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> Now, vmscan is using __pagevec_free() for batch freeing. but
> pagevec consume slightly lots stack (sizeof(long)*8), and x86_64
> stack is very strictly limited.
>
> Then, now we are planning to use page->lru list instead pagevec
> for reducing stack. and introduce new helper function.
>
> This is similar to __pagevec_free(), but receive list instead
> pagevec. and this don't use pcp cache. it is good characteristics
> for vmscan.
>
> Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/gfp.h | 1 +
> mm/page_alloc.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/gfp.h b/include/linux/gfp.h
> index 4c6d413..dbcac56 100644
> --- a/include/linux/gfp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/gfp.h
> @@ -332,6 +332,7 @@ extern void free_hot_cold_page(struct page *page, int cold);
> #define __free_page(page) __free_pages((page), 0)
> #define free_page(addr) free_pages((addr),0)
>
> +void free_pages_bulk(struct zone *zone, struct list_head *list);
> void page_alloc_init(void);
> void drain_zone_pages(struct zone *zone, struct per_cpu_pages *pcp);
> void drain_all_pages(void);
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index ba9aea7..1f68832 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -2049,6 +2049,50 @@ void free_pages(unsigned long addr, unsigned int order)
>
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(free_pages);
>
> +/*
> + * Frees a number of pages from the list
> + * Assumes all pages on list are in same zone and order==0.
> + *
> + * This is similar to __pagevec_free(), but receive list instead pagevec.
> + * and this don't use pcp cache. it is good characteristics for vmscan.
> + */
> +void free_pages_bulk(struct zone *zone, struct list_head *list)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct page *page;
> + struct page *page2;
> + int nr_pages = 0;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(page, page2, list, lru) {
> + int wasMlocked = __TestClearPageMlocked(page);
> +
> + if (free_pages_prepare(page, 0)) {
> + /* Make orphan the corrupted page. */
> + list_del(&page->lru);
> + continue;
> + }
> + if (unlikely(wasMlocked)) {
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + free_page_mlock(page);
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> + }
You could clear this under the zone->lock below before calling
__free_one_page. It'd avoid a large number of IRQ enables and disables which
are a problem on some CPUs (P4 and Itanium both blow in this regard according
to PeterZ).
> + nr_pages++;
> + }
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&zone->lock, flags);
> + __count_vm_events(PGFREE, nr_pages);
> + zone->all_unreclaimable = 0;
> + zone->pages_scanned = 0;
> + __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, nr_pages);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(page, page2, list, lru) {
> + /* have to delete it as __free_one_page list manipulates */
> + list_del(&page->lru);
> + __free_one_page(page, zone, 0, page_private(page));
> + }
This has the effect of bypassing the per-cpu lists as well as making the
zone lock hotter. The cache hotness of the data within the page is
probably not a factor but the cache hotness of the stuct page is.
The zone lock getting hotter is a greater problem. Large amounts of page
reclaim or dumping of page cache will now contend on the zone lock where
as previously it would have dumped into the per-cpu lists (potentially
but not necessarily avoiding the zone lock).
While there might be a stack saving in the next patch, there would appear
to be definite performance implications in taking this patch.
Functionally, I see no problem but I'd put this sort of patch on the
very long finger until the performance aspects of it could be examined.
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
> +}
> +
> /**
> * alloc_pages_exact - allocate an exact number physically-contiguous pages.
> * @size: the number of bytes to allocate
> --
> 1.6.5.2
>
>
>
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
