lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages?
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 05:52:47PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:31:19 +0800
> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:17:34PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:34:38 +0800
> > > Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Minchan,
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:33:54PM +0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Wu Fengguang<fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 01:15:02PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > > >> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:53:00AM +0800, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > > >> > Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 05:09:55AM +0800, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > > > > >> > >> Side question -
> > > > > >> > >>  Is there a good reason for this to be in shrink_active_list()
> > > > > >> > >> as opposed to __isolate_lru_page?
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >>          if (unlikely(!page_evictable(page, NULL))) {
> > > > > >> > >>                  putback_lru_page(page);
> > > > > >> > >>                  continue;
> > > > > >> > >>          }
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> Maybe we want to minimize the amount of code under the lru lock or
> > > > > >> > >> avoid duplicate logic in the isolate_page functions.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I guess the quick test means to avoid the expensive page_referenced()
> > > > > >> > > call that follows it. But that should be mostly one shot cost - the
> > > > > >> > > unevictable pages are unlikely to cycle in active/inactive list again
> > > > > >> > > and again.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Please read what putback_lru_page does.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > It moves the page onto the unevictable list, so that
> > > > > >> > it will not end up in this scan again.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Yes it does. I said 'mostly' because there is a small hole that an
> > > > > >> unevictable page may be scanned but still not moved to unevictable
> > > > > >> list: when a page is mapped in two places, the first pte has the
> > > > > >> referenced bit set, the _second_ VMA has VM_LOCKED bit set, then
> > > > > >> page_referenced() will return 1 and shrink_page_list() will move it
> > > > > >> into active list instead of unevictable list. Shall we fix this rare
> > > > > >> case?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it's not a big deal.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe, otherwise I should bring up this issue long time before :)
> > > >
> > > > > As you mentioned, it's rare case so there would be few pages in active
> > > > > list instead of unevictable list.
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > > When next time to scan comes, we can try to move the pages into
> > > > > unevictable list, again.
> > > >
> > > > Will PG_mlocked be set by then? Otherwise the situation is not likely
> > > > to change and the VM_LOCKED pages may circulate in active/inactive
> > > > list for countless times.
> > >
> > > PG_mlocked is not important in that case.
> > > Important thing is VM_LOCKED vma.
> > > I think below annotaion can help you to understand my point. :)
> >
> > Hmm, it looks like pages under VM_LOCKED vma is guaranteed to have
> > PG_mlocked set, and so will be caught by page_evictable(). Is it?
>
> No. I am sorry for making my point not clear.
> I meant following as.
> When the next time to scan,
>
> shrink_page_list
->
referenced = page_referenced(page, 1,
sc->mem_cgroup, &vm_flags);
/* In active use or really unfreeable? Activate it. */
if (sc->order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page))
goto activate_locked;

> -> try_to_unmap
~~~~~~~~~~~~ this line won't be reached if page is found to be
referenced in the above lines?

Thanks,
Fengguang

> -> try_to_unmap_xxx
> -> if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)
> -> try_to_mlock_page
> -> TestSetPageMlocked
> -> putback_lru_page
>
> So at last, the page will be located in unevictable list.
>
> > Then I was worrying about a null problem. Sorry for the confusion!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> >
> > > ----
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * called from munlock()/munmap() path with page supposedly on the LRU.
> > > *
> > > * Note: unlike mlock_vma_page(), we can't just clear the PageMlocked
> > > * [in try_to_munlock()] and then attempt to isolate the page. We must
> > > * isolate the page to keep others from messing with its unevictable
> > > * and mlocked state while trying to munlock. However, we pre-clear the
> > > * mlocked state anyway as we might lose the isolation race and we might
> > > * not get another chance to clear PageMlocked. If we successfully
> > > * isolate the page and try_to_munlock() detects other VM_LOCKED vmas
> > > * mapping the page, it will restore the PageMlocked state, unless the page
> > > * is mapped in a non-linear vma. So, we go ahead and SetPageMlocked(),
> > > * perhaps redundantly.
> > > * If we lose the isolation race, and the page is mapped by other VM_LOCKED
> > > * vmas, we'll detect this in vmscan--via try_to_munlock() or try_to_unmap()
> > > * either of which will restore the PageMlocked state by calling
> > > * mlock_vma_page() above, if it can grab the vma's mmap sem.
> > > */
> > > static void munlock_vma_page(struct page *page)
> > > {
> > > ...
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Minchan Kim
>
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Minchan Kim
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-18 12:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site