lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [patch 3/3] mm: keep pages from unevictable mappings off the LRU lists
Date
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:21:36AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > Hmm,,
> > >
> > > This patch is another thing unlike previous series patches.
> > > Firstly, It looked good to me.
> > >
> > > I think add_to_page_cache_lru have to become a fast path.
> > > But, how often would ramfs and shmem function be called ?
> > >
> > > I have a concern for this patch to add another burden.
> > > so, we need any numbers for getting pros and cons.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts ?
> >
> > this is the just reason why current code don't call add_page_to_unevictable_list().
> > add_page_to_unevictable_list() don't use pagevec. it is needed for avoiding race.
> >
> > then, if readahead path (i.e. add_to_page_cache_lru()) use add_page_to_unevictable_list(),
> > it can cause zone->lru_lock contention storm.
>
> How is it different then shrink_page_list()? If readahead put a
> contiguous chunk of unevictable pages to the file lru, then
> shrink_page_list() will as well call add_page_to_unevictable_list() in
> a loop.

it's probability issue.

readahead: we need to concern
(1) readahead vs readahead
(2) readahead vs reclaim

vmscan: we need to concern
(3) background reclaim vs foreground reclaim

So, (3) is rarely event than (1) and (2).
Am I missing anything?





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-23 10:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans