Hi Hugh and Johannes,
On 03/08/2013 11:16 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:48:31AM +0800, Simon Jeons wrote:
On 03/08/2013 10:37 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 10:13:25AM +0800, Simon Jeons wrote:
Ping, :-)
On 03/07/2013 09:05 AM, Simon Jeons wrote:
Hi Johannes,
On 03/07/2013 03:47 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 09:04:55AM +0800, Simon Jeons wrote:
Hi Johannes,
On 03/04/2013 11:09 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 09:54:26AM +0800, Li Haifeng wrote:
When a page cache is to reclaim, we should to decide whether the page
cache is free.
IMO, the condition whether a page cache is free should be 3 in page
frame reclaiming. The reason lists as below.
When page is allocated, the page->_count is 1(code
fragment is code-1 ).
And when the page is allocated for reading files from
extern disk, the
page->_count will increment 1 by page_cache_get() in
add_to_page_cache_locked()(code fragment is code-2). When
the page is to
reclaim, the isolated LRU list also increase the page->_count(code
fragment is code-3).
The page count is initialized to 1, but that does not stay with the
object. It's a reference that is passed to the allocating task, which
drops it again when it's done with the page. I.e. the pattern is like
this:
instantiation:
page = page_cache_alloc() /* instantiator reference -> 1 */
add_to_page_cache(page, mapping, offset)
get_page(page) /* page cache reference -> 2 */
lru_cache_add(page)
get_page(page) /* pagevec reference -> 3 */
/* ...initiate read, write, associate buffers, ... */
page_cache_release(page) /* drop instantiator reference
-> 2 + private */
reclaim:
lru_add_drain()
page_cache_release(page) /* drop pagevec reference ->
1 + private */
IIUC, when add page to lru will lead to add to pagevec firstly, and
pagevec will take one reference, so if lru will take over the
reference taken by pagevec when page transmit from pagevec to lru?
or just drop the reference and lru will not take reference for page?
The LRU does not hold a reference, it would not make sense. The
pagevec only needs one because it would be awkward to remove a
concurrently freed page out of a pagevec, but unlinking a page from
the LRU is easy. See mm/swap.c::__page_cache_release() and friends.
Since pagevec is per cpu, when can remove a concurrently freed
page out of a pagevec happen?
It doesn't because the pagevec holds a reference, as I wrote above.
I mean since pagevec is per cpu, how can remove a concurrently freed
page out of a pagevec happen? If it doesn't happen pagevec don't
need to hold a reference. :-)
It has nothing to do with the pagevec being per CPU. The page may get
truncated or reclaimed and have every other reference being dropped
while it sits on the pagevec.
In function shmem_replace_page, there are twice call of
page_cache_release for oldpage, one is for pre_new_page, the other is
for page cache, but if page is still in pagevec, pagevec has one
reference and oldpage can't be freed, is it a bug?
--
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>