Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:36:31 +0100
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
       Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       MinChan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
       Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] mm: keep pages from unevictable mappings off the LRU lists
Message-ID: <20090326103631.GA1775@cmpxchg.org>
References: <12135.1237805607@redhat.com> <20090326000100.GA5404@cmpxchg.org> <20090326175314.68F7.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090326175314.68F7.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1855
Lines: 44

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 05:56:52PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:53:27AM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > > Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > -		if (page_is_file_cache(page))
> > > > +		if (mapping_unevictable(mapping))
> > > > +			add_page_to_unevictable_list(page);
> > > > +		else if (page_is_file_cache(page))
> > > 
> > > It would be nice to avoid adding an extra test and branch in here.  This
> > > function is used a lot, and quite often we know the answer to the first test
> > > before we even get here.
> > 
> > Yes, I thought about that too.  So I mounted a tmpfs and dd'd
> > /dev/zero to a file on it until it ran out of space (around 900M,
> > without swapping), deleted the file again.  I did this in a tight loop
> > and profiled it.
> > 
> > I couldn't think of a way that would excercise add_to_page_cache_lru()
> > more, I hope I didn't overlook anything, please correct if I am wrong.
> > 
> > If I was not, than the extra checking for unevictable mappings doesn't
> > make a measurable difference.  The function on the vanilla kernel had
> > a share of 0.2033%, on the patched kernel 0.1953%.
> 
> May I ask the number of the cpu of your test box.
> In general, lock contention possibility depend on #ofCPUs.

Yes, sure.  In this test I tried to find out how much this extra
branch makes a difference for the common path (untaken), though.

I have not tried to instrument the lock contention.  But this will be
done with a quadcore system.

> So, I and lee mainly talked about large box.

Yeah, I don't have such a thing ;)

	Hannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/