Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:36:14 -0800 (PST) | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | | Subject | Re: [patch 0/4] mm: de-skew page refcount |
| |
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Nick Piggin wrote: > > But actually it doesn't matter that we might touch page_count, only > that we not clear PageLRU. So the enabler is simply moving the > TestClearPageLRU after the get_page_testone.
One side note on your patch: the pure bit _test_ operation is very cheap, but the "bit change" operation is very expensive (and not really any less expensive than the "test-and-change" one).
So the patch to avoid "test_and_clear_bit()" really helps only if the test usually results in us not doing the clear. Is that the case? Hmm..
So I _think_ that at least the case in "isolate_lru_page()", you'd actually be better off doing the "test-and-clear" instead of separate "test" and "clear-bit" ops, no? In that one, it would seem that 99+% of the time, the bit is set (because we tested it just before getting the lock).
No?
> I needed the de-skewing patch for something unrelated and it seemed that > it opened the possibility for the following optimisations (ie. because > we no longer touch a page after its refcount goes to zero). > > But actually it doesn't matter that we might touch page_count, only > that we not clear PageLRU. So the enabler is simply moving the > TestClearPageLRU after the get_page_testone.
Yes.
Now, that whole "we might touch the page count" thing does actually worry me a bit. The locking rules are subtle (but they -seem- safe: before we actually really put the page on the free-list in the freeing path, we'll have locked the LRU list if it was on one).
But if you were to change _that_ one to a
atomic_add_unless(&page->counter, 1, -1);
I think that would be a real cleanup. And at that point I won't even complain that "atomic_inc_test()" is faster - that "get_page_testone()" thing is just fundamentally a bit scary, so I'd applaud it regardless. (The difference: the "counter skewing" may be unexpected, but it's just a simple trick. In contrast, the "touch the count after the page may be already in the freeing stage" is a scary subtle thing. Even if I can't see any actual bug in it, it just worries me in a way that offsetting a counter by one does not..)
Linus - 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/
|  |