On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:07:29 -0700 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 15:00:29 -0800
> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > hm, bit_spin_lock() is a nasty thing. It is slow and it doesn't have
> > all the lockdep support.
> >
> > Would the world end if we added a spinlock to swap_cluster_info?
>
> FWIW, I asked the same question in December, this is what I got:
>
> ...
>
> > > Why the roll-your-own locking and data structures here? To my naive
> > > understanding, it seems like you could do something like:
> > >
> > > struct swap_cluster_info {
> > > spinlock_t lock;
> > > atomic_t count;
> > > unsigned int flags;
> > > };
> > >
> > > Then you could use proper spinlock operations which, among other things,
> > > would make the realtime folks happier. That might well help with the
> > > cache-line sharing issues as well. Some of the count manipulations could
> > > perhaps be done without the lock entirely; similarly, atomic bitops might
> > > save you the locking for some of the flag tweaks - though I'd have to look
> > > more closely to be really sure of that.
> > >
> > > The cost, of course, is the growth of this structure, but you've already
> > > noted that the overhead isn't all that high; seems like it could be worth
> > > it.
> >
> > Yes. The data structure you proposed is much easier to be used than the
> > current one. The main concern is the RAM usage. The size of the data
> > structure you proposed is about 80 bytes, while that of the current one
> > is about 8 bytes. There will be one struct swap_cluster_info for every
> > 1MB swap space, so for 1TB swap space, the total size will be 80M
> > compared with 8M of current implementation.
Where did this 80 bytes come from? That swap_cluster_info is 12 bytes
and could perhaps be squeezed into 8 bytes if we can get away with a
24-bit "count".
> > In the other hand, the return of the increased size is not overwhelming.
> > The bit spinlock on cluster will not be heavy contended because it is a
> > quite fine-grained lock. So the benefit will be little to use lockless
> > operations. I guess the realtime issue isn't serious given the lock is
> > not heavy contended and the operations protected by the lock is
> > light-weight too.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>