On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Index: linux/mm/page_alloc.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/mm/page_alloc.c Â2011-02-15 16:28:36.165921713 -0600
> > +++ linux/mm/page_alloc.c    2011-02-15 16:29:43.085502487 -0600
> > @@ -592,10 +592,24 @@ static void free_pcppages_bulk(struct zo
> > Â Â Â Âint batch_free = 0;
> > Â Â Â Âint to_free = count;
> >
> > + Â Â Â /*
> > + Â Â Â Â* Quick scan of zones. If all are empty, there is nothing to do.
> > + Â Â Â Â*/
> > + Â Â Â for (migratetype = 0; migratetype < MIGRATE_PCPTYPES; migratetype++) {
> > + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â struct list_head *list;
> > +
> > + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â list = &pcp->lists[migratetype];
> > + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â if (!list_empty(list))
> > + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â break;
> > + Â Â Â }
> > + Â Â Â if (migratetype == MIGRATE_PCPTYPES)
> > + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return;
> > +
> > Â Â Â Âspin_lock(&zone->lock);
> > Â Â Â Âzone->all_unreclaimable = 0;
> > Â Â Â Âzone->pages_scanned = 0;
> >
> > + Â Â Â migratetype = 0;
> > Â Â Â Âwhile (to_free) {
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âstruct page *page;
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âstruct list_head *list;
>
> It does make sense to me.
> Although new code looks to be rather costly in small box, anyway we
> use the same logic in while loop so cache would be hot. so cost would
> be little.
>
I was going to mention the implications for small machines as well, this
doesn't look good for callers that know free_pcppages_bulk() will do
something.
> But how about this? This one never affect fast-critical path.
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index ff7e158..2dfb61a 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1095,8 +1095,10 @@ static void drain_pages(unsigned int cpu)
> pset = per_cpu_ptr(zone->pageset, cpu);
>
> pcp = &pset->pcp;
> - free_pcppages_bulk(zone, pcp->count, pcp);
> - pcp->count = 0;
> + if (pcp->count > 0) {
> + free_pcppages_bulk(zone, pcp->count, pcp);
> + pcp->count = 0;
> + }
> local_irq_restore(flags);
> }
> }
Right, this is 2ff754fa upstream. I'm wondering if Jack still sees the
same problem since 2.6.38-rc3.