On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:15:57AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 08:01:44AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 07:23:48AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >> I mean we have more tail pages than head pages. So I think we are likely to
> > >> meet tail pages. Of course, compared to all pages(page cache, anon and
> > >> so on), compound pages would be very small percentage.
> > >
> > > Yes that's my point, that being a small percentage it's no big deal to
> > > break the loop early.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > >
> > >> > isolated the head and it's useless to insist on more tail pages (at
> > >> > least for large page size like on x86). Plus we've compaction so
> > >>
> > >> I can't understand your point. Could you elaborate it?
> > >
> > > What I meant is that if we already isolated the head page of the THP,
> > > we don't need to try to free the tail pages and breaking the loop
> > > early, will still give us a chance to free a whole 2m because we
> > > isolated the head page (it'll involve some work and swapping but if it
> > > was a compoundtranspage we're ok to break the loop and we're not
> > > making the logic any worse). Provided the PMD_SIZE is quite large like
> > > 2/4m...
> >
> > Do you want this? (it's almost pseudo-code)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 7a4469b..9d7609f 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -1017,7 +1017,7 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned
> > long nr_to_scan,
> > for (scan = 0; scan < nr_to_scan && !list_empty(src); scan++) {
> > struct page *page;
> > unsigned long pfn;
> > - unsigned long end_pfn;
> > + unsigned long start_pfn, end_pfn;
> > unsigned long page_pfn;
> > int zone_id;
> >
> > @@ -1057,9 +1057,9 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned
> > long nr_to_scan,
> > */
> > zone_id = page_zone_id(page);
> > page_pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
> > - pfn = page_pfn & ~((1 << order) - 1);
> > + start_pfn = pfn = page_pfn & ~((1 << order) - 1);
> > end_pfn = pfn + (1 << order);
> > - for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn++) {
> > + while (pfn < end_pfn) {
> > struct page *cursor_page;
> >
> > /* The target page is in the block, ignore it. */
> > @@ -1086,17 +1086,25 @@ static unsigned long
> > isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
> > break;
> >
> > if (__isolate_lru_page(cursor_page, mode, file) == 0) {
> > + int isolated_pages;
> > list_move(&cursor_page->lru, dst);
> > mem_cgroup_del_lru(cursor_page);
> > - nr_taken += hpage_nr_pages(page);
> > + isolated_pages = hpage_nr_pages(page);
> > + nr_taken += isolated_pages;
> > + /* if we isolated pages enough, let's
> > break early */
> > + if (nr_taken > end_pfn - start_pfn)
> > + break;
> > + pfn += isolated_pages;
>
> I think this condition is somewhat unlikely. We are scanning within
> aligned blocks in this linear scanner. Huge pages are always aligned
> so the only situation where we'll encounter a hugepage in the middle
> of this linear scan is when the requested order is larger than a huge
> page. This is exceptionally rare.
>
> Did I miss something?
>
I forgot to mention the "pfn += isolated_pages" but I'm also worried
about it. It's a performance gain iif we are encountering huge pages
during the linear scan which I think is rare but also, I think this
is now skipping pages in the linear scan because we now have
for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn++) {
if (isolate page) {
isolated_pages = hpage_nr_pages(page);
pfn += isolated_pages;
}
}
hpage_nr_pages is returning 1 for order-0 LRU pages so now the loop is
effectively
for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn += 2)
Did you mean
pfn += isolated_pages - 1;
?
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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>