lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH -mmotm-2009-12-10-17-19] Prevent churning of zero page in LRU list.
* Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2009-12-28 09:26:39]:

> * Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> [2009-12-27 22:22:20]:
>
> > On 12/27/2009 09:53 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > >
> > >VM doesn't add zero page to LRU list.
> > >It means zero page's churning in LRU list is pointless.
> > >
> > >As a matter of fact, zero page can't be promoted by mark_page_accessed
> > >since it doesn't have PG_lru.
> > >
> > >This patch prevent unecessary mark_page_accessed call of zero page
> > >alghouth caller want FOLL_TOUCH.
> > >
> > >Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim<minchan.kim@gmail.com>
> >
> > The code looks correct, but I wonder how frequently we run into
> > the zero page in this code, vs. how much the added cost is of
> > having this extra code in follow_page.
> >
> > What kind of problem were you running into that motivated you
> > to write this patch?
> >
>
> Frequent moving of zero page should ideally put it to the head of the
> LRU list, leaving it untouched is likely to cause it to be scanned
> often - no? Should this be moved to the unevictable list?
>

Sorry, I replied to wrong email, I should have been clearer that this
question is for Minchan Kim.

--
Balbir


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-28 04:59    [W:0.145 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site