On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 23:57 +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The zone->lru_lock is heavily contented in workload where activate_page()
> > is frequently used. We could do batch activate_page() to reduce the lock
> > contention. The batched pages will be added into zone list when the pool
> > is full or page reclaim is trying to drain them.
> >
> > For example, in a 4 socket 64 CPU system, create a sparse file and 64 processes,
> > processes shared map to the file. Each process read access the whole file and
> > then exit. The process exit will do unmap_vmas() and cause a lot of
> > activate_page() call. In such workload, we saw about 58% total time reduction
> > with below patch. Other workloads with a lot of activate_page also benefits a
> > lot too.
> >
> > Andrew Morton suggested activate_page() and putback_lru_pages() should
> > follow the same path to active pages, but this is hard to implement (see commit
> > 7a608572a282a). On the other hand, do we really need putback_lru_pages() to
> > follow the same path? I tested several FIO/FFSB benchmark (about 20 scripts for
> > each benchmark) in 3 machines here from 2 sockets to 4 sockets. My test doesn't
> > show anything significant with/without below patch (there is slight difference
> > but mostly some noise which we found even without below patch before). Below
> > patch basically returns to the same as my first post.
> >
> > I tested some microbenchmarks:
> > case-anon-cow-rand-mt 0.58%
> > case-anon-cow-rand -3.30%
> > case-anon-cow-seq-mt -0.51%
> > case-anon-cow-seq -5.68%
> > case-anon-r-rand-mt 0.23%
> > case-anon-r-rand 0.81%
> > case-anon-r-seq-mt -0.71%
> > case-anon-r-seq -1.99%
> > case-anon-rx-rand-mt 2.11%
> > case-anon-rx-seq-mt 3.46%
> > case-anon-w-rand-mt -0.03%
> > case-anon-w-rand -0.50%
> > case-anon-w-seq-mt -1.08%
> > case-anon-w-seq -0.12%
> > case-anon-wx-rand-mt -5.02%
> > case-anon-wx-seq-mt -1.43%
> > case-fork 1.65%
> > case-fork-sleep -0.07%
> > case-fork-withmem 1.39%
> > case-hugetlb -0.59%
> > case-lru-file-mmap-read-mt -0.54%
> > case-lru-file-mmap-read 0.61%
> > case-lru-file-mmap-read-rand -2.24%
> > case-lru-file-readonce -0.64%
> > case-lru-file-readtwice -11.69%
> > case-lru-memcg -1.35%
> > case-mmap-pread-rand-mt 1.88%
> > case-mmap-pread-rand -15.26%
> > case-mmap-pread-seq-mt 0.89%
> > case-mmap-pread-seq -69.72%
> > case-mmap-xread-rand-mt 0.71%
> > case-mmap-xread-seq-mt 0.38%
> >
> > The most significent are:
> > case-lru-file-readtwice -11.69%
> > case-mmap-pread-rand -15.26%
> > case-mmap-pread-seq -69.72%
> >
> > which use activate_page a lot. others are basically variations because
> > each run has slightly difference.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> > mm/swap.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux/mm/swap.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/mm/swap.c 2011-03-07 10:01:41.000000000 +0800
> > +++ linux/mm/swap.c 2011-03-07 10:09:37.000000000 +0800
> > @@ -270,14 +270,10 @@ static void update_page_reclaim_stat(str
> > memcg_reclaim_stat->recent_rotated[file]++;
> > }
> >
> > -/*
> > - * FIXME: speed this up?
> > - */
> > -void activate_page(struct page *page)
> > +static void __activate_page(struct page *page, void *arg)
> > {
> > struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
> >
> > - spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> > if (PageLRU(page) && !PageActive(page) && !PageUnevictable(page)) {
> > int file = page_is_file_cache(page);
> > int lru = page_lru_base_type(page);
> > @@ -290,8 +286,45 @@ void activate_page(struct page *page)
> >
> > update_page_reclaim_stat(zone, page, file, 1);
> > }
> > +}
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pagevec, activate_page_pvecs);
>
> Why do we have to handle SMP and !SMP?
> We have been not separated in case of pagevec using in swap.c.
> If you have a special reason, please write it down.
this is to reduce memory footprint as suggested by akpm.
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>