Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:34:28 -0800 (PST)
Hugh Dickins<hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
return NULL;
+ lruvec = page_lock_lruvec(page);
lock_page_cgroup(pc);
Do we need to take lrulock+irq disable per page in this very very hot path ?
I'm sure we don't want to: I hope you were pleased to find it goes away
(from most cases) a couple of patches later.
I had lruvec lock nested inside page_cgroup lock in the rollup I sent in
December, whereas you went for page_cgroup lock nested inside lruvec lock
in your lrucare patch.
I couldn't find an imperative reason why they should be one way round or
the other, so I tried hard to stick with your ordering, and it did work
(in this 6/10). But then I couldn't work out how to get rid of the
overheads added in doing it this way round, so swapped them back.
Hmm.... How about adding NR_ISOLATED counter into lruvec ?
Then, we can delay freeing lruvec until all conunters goes down to zero.
as...
bool we_can_free_lruvec = true;
lock_lruvec(lruvec->lock);
for_each_lru_lruvec(lru)
if (!list_empty(&lruvec->lru[lru]))
we_can_free_lruvec = false;
if (lruvec->nr_isolated)
we_can_free_lruvec = false;
unlock_lruvec(lruvec)
if (we_can_free_lruvec)
kfree(lruvec);
If compaction, lumpy reclaim free a page taken from LRU,
it knows what it does and can decrement lruvec->nr_isolated properly
(it seems zone's NR_ISOLATED is decremented at putback.)
At the moment I'm thinking that what we end up with by 9/10 is
better than adding such a refcount. But I'm not entirely happy with
mem_cgroup_reset_uncharged_to_root (it adds a further page_cgroup
lookup just after I got rid of some others), and need yet to think
about the race which Konstantin posits, so all options remain open.
This lruvec->nr_isolated seem reasonable, and its managegin not very costly.
In move_account() we anyway need to touch old_lruvec->lru_lock after recharge,
to stabilize PageLRU() before adding page to new_lruvec. (because that race)
In migration/compaction this handled automatically, because they always call putback_lru_page() at the end.
Main problem is shrink_page_list() for lumpy-reclaim, but seems like it never used if memory
compaction is enabled, so it can be slow and ineffective with tons of lru_list relocks.
Hugh
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>