Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752723Ab0KXKDA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:03:00 -0500
Received: from gir.skynet.ie ([193.1.99.77]:47524 "EHLO gir.skynet.ie"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750969Ab0KXKC6 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 24 Nov 2010 05:02:58 -0500
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:02:42 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] deactive invalidated pages
Message-ID: <20101124100242.GW19571@csn.ul.ie>
References: <bdd6628e81c06f6871983c971d91160fca3f8b5e.1290349672.git.minchan.kim@gmail.com> <20101123092826.GD19571@csn.ul.ie> <AANLkTi=KunDRwVd73vtbng0F+a=QBgJeV5BXrewYJa3R@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=KunDRwVd73vtbng0F+a=QBgJeV5BXrewYJa3R@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4422
Lines: 125

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 08:24:35AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >> <SNIP>
> >>
> >> +static void __pagevec_lru_deactive(struct pagevec *pvec)
> >> +{
> >
> > Might be worth commenting that this function must be called with pre-emption
> > disabled. FWIW, I am reasonably sure your implementation is prefectly safe
> > but a note wouldn't hurt.
> 
> Will fix.
> 

Thanks

> >
> >> + ? ? int i, lru, file;
> >> +
> >> + ? ? struct zone *zone = NULL;
> >> +
> >> + ? ? for (i = 0; i < pagevec_count(pvec); i++) {
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? struct page *page = pvec->pages[i];
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? struct zone *pagezone = page_zone(page);
> >> +
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? if (pagezone != zone) {
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (zone)
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? zone = pagezone;
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? }
> >> +
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? if (PageLRU(page)) {
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (PageActive(page)) {
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? file = page_is_file_cache(page);
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? lru = page_lru_base_type(page);
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? del_page_from_lru_list(zone, page,
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? lru + LRU_ACTIVE);
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ClearPageActive(page);
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ClearPageReferenced(page);
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? add_page_to_lru_list(zone, page, lru);
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? __count_vm_event(PGDEACTIVATE);
> >> +
> >
> > What about memcg, do we not need to be calling mem_cgroup_add_lru_list() here
> > as well? I'm looking at the differences between what move_active_pages_to_lru()
> 
> Recently, add_page_to_lru_list contains mem_cgroup_add_lru_list.
> 

My bad, you're right. I was thrown by move_active_pages_to_lru() needing to
do memcg stuff manually and didn't spot why it ok to miss it here.

> > is doing and this. I'm wondering if it'd be worth your whole building a list
> > of active pages that are to be moved to the inactive list and passing them
> > to move_active_pages_to_lru() ? I confuess I have not thought about it deeply
> > so it might be a terrible suggestion but it might reduce duplication of code.
> 
> Firstly I tried it so I sent a patch about making
> move_to_active_pages_to_lru more generic.
> move_to_active_pages_to_lru needs zone argument so I need gathering
> pages per zone in truncate.
> I don't want for user of the function to consider even zone and
> zone->lru_lock handling.
> 
> I think the lru_demote_pages could be used elsewhere(ex, readahead max
> size heuristic).
> So it's generic and easy to use. :)
> 

Ok, that's fair enough.

> >
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? update_page_reclaim_stat(zone, page, file, 0);
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? }
> >> + ? ? }
> >> + ? ? if (zone)
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
> >> +
> >> + ? ? release_pages(pvec->pages, pvec->nr, pvec->cold);
> >> + ? ? pagevec_reinit(pvec);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> ?/*
> >> ? * Drain pages out of the cpu's pagevecs.
> >> ? * Either "cpu" is the current CPU, and preemption has already been
> >> @@ -292,8 +333,28 @@ static void drain_cpu_pagevecs(int cpu)
> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? pagevec_move_tail(pvec);
> >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? local_irq_restore(flags);
> >> ? ? ? }
> >> +
> >> + ? ? pvec = &per_cpu(lru_deactive_pvecs, cpu);
> >> + ? ? if (pagevec_count(pvec))
> >> + ? ? ? ? ? ? __pagevec_lru_deactive(pvec);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * Function used to forecefully demote a page to the head of the inactive
> >> + * list.
> >
> > s/forecefully/forcefully/
> >
> > The comment should also state *why* and under what circumstances we move
> > pages to the inactive list like this. Also based on the discussions
> > elsewhere in this thread, it'd be nice to include a comment why it's the
> > head of the inactive list and not the tail.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> Thanks for the comment, Mel.
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
> 

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/