On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 23:29:40 +0400 Glauber Costa <glommer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Now that we have an LRU list API, we can start to enhance the
> implementation. This splits the single LRU list into per-node lists
> and locks to enhance scalability.
Do we have any runtime measurements? They're pretty important for
justifying inclusion of the code.
Measurememnts for non-NUMA and uniprocessor kernels would be useful in
making that decision as well.
In fact a lot of the patchset is likely to be injurious to small
machines. We should quantify this and then persade ourselves that the
large-machine gains are worth the small-machine losses.
> Items are placed on lists
> according to the node the memory belongs to. To make scanning the
> lists efficient, also track whether the per-node lists have entries
> in them in a active nodemask.
>
> Note:
> We use a fixed-size array for the node LRU, this struct can be very big
> if MAX_NUMNODES is big. If this becomes a problem this is fixable by
> turning this into a pointer and dynamically allocating this to
> nr_node_ids. This quantity is firwmare-provided, and still would provide
> room for all nodes at the cost of a pointer lookup and an extra
> allocation. Because that allocation will most likely come from a
> different slab cache than the main structure holding this structure, we
> may very well fail.
Surprised. How big is MAX_NUMNODES likely to get?
lib/flex_array.c might be of use here.
>
> ...
>
> -struct list_lru {
> +struct list_lru_node {
> spinlock_t lock;
> struct list_head list;
> long nr_items;
> +} ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> +
> +struct list_lru {
> + /*
> + * Because we use a fixed-size array, this struct can be very big if
> + * MAX_NUMNODES is big. If this becomes a problem this is fixable by
> + * turning this into a pointer and dynamically allocating this to
> + * nr_node_ids. This quantity is firwmare-provided, and still would
> + * provide room for all nodes at the cost of a pointer lookup and an
> + * extra allocation. Because that allocation will most likely come from
> + * a different slab cache than the main structure holding this
> + * structure, we may very well fail.
> + */
> + struct list_lru_node node[MAX_NUMNODES];
> + nodemask_t active_nodes;
Some documentation of the data structure would be helpful. It appears
that active_nodes tracks (ie: duplicates) node[x].nr_items!=0.
It's unclear that active_nodes is really needed - we could just iterate
across all items in list_lru.node[]. Are we sure that the correct
tradeoff decision was made here?
What's the story on NUMA node hotplug, btw?
> };
>
>
> ...
>
> unsigned long
> -list_lru_walk(
> - struct list_lru *lru,
> - list_lru_walk_cb isolate,
> - void *cb_arg,
> - unsigned long nr_to_walk)
> +list_lru_count(struct list_lru *lru)
> {
> + long count = 0;
> + int nid;
> +
> + for_each_node_mask(nid, lru->active_nodes) {
> + struct list_lru_node *nlru = &lru->node[nid];
> +
> + spin_lock(&nlru->lock);
> + BUG_ON(nlru->nr_items < 0);
This is buggy.
The bit in lru->active_nodes could be cleared by now. We can only make
this assertion if we recheck lru->active_nodes[nid] inside the
spinlocked region.
> + count += nlru->nr_items;
> + spin_unlock(&nlru->lock);
> + }
> +
> + return count;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(list_lru_count);
list_lru_count()'s return value is of course approximate. If callers
require that the returned value be exact, they will need to provide
their own locking on top of list_lru's internal locking (which would
then become redundant).
This is the sort of thing which should be discussed in the interface
documentation.
list_lru_count() can be very expensive.
>
> ...
>
--
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>