lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm - implement swap prefetching
Date
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org> wrote:
> > + /* Select the zone with the most free ram */
> > + if (free > most_free) {
> > + most_free = free;

> Why use the "zone with most free pages"? Generally it would be better to
> use up ZONE_HIGHMEM first: ZONE_NORMAL is valuable.

Ok. Sounds fair.

> > + /* We shouldn't prefetch when we are doing writeback */
> > + if (ps.nr_writeback)
> > + goto out;
>
> Yeah, this really needs to become per-disk-queue-aware.

I looked but it started looking like I was going to over-engineer.

> > + /* Delay prefetching if we have significant amounts of dirty data */
> > + pending_writes = ps.nr_dirty + ps.nr_unstable;
> > + if (pending_writes > SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX)
> > + goto out;
>
> Surely this is too aggressive. There are almost always a few tens of dirty
> pages floating about, especially when atime updates are enabled. I'd
> suggest that you stick a printk in here - I expect you'll find that this
> test triggers a lot - too much.

Actually I was quite aware of how frequently this hits. What I found in
practice was that the amount of dirty ram was an extraordinarily good marker
of whether the system was globally idle / low stressed or not. It did not
seem to stop prefetching from occurring in the real world on the machines I
tried it on.

> > + if (unlikely(!read_trylock(&swapper_space.tree_lock)))
> > + goto out;
> > + limit += total_swapcache_pages;
> > + read_unlock(&swapper_space.tree_lock);
>
> I'd just not bother with the locking at all here.

Ok.

> > + daemonize("kprefetchd");
>
> kthread(), please.

Check.

> > + init_timer(&prefetch_timer);
> > + prefetch_timer.data = 0;
> > + prefetch_timer.function = prefetch_wakeup;
> > +
> > + kernel_thread(kprefetchd, NULL, CLONE_KERNEL);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Might be able to use a boring old wake_up_process() here rather than a
> waitqueue.
>
> Is the timer actually needed? Could just do schedule_timeout() in
> kprefetchd()?

I guess. The timer just made it easy to start and stop it completely before I
turned prefetch into a daemon and it kinda stayed that way. It's not run that
frequently and only does miniscule things in that context; is it of a
significant advantage?

Thanks very much!

Cheers,
Con
-
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: 2005-10-12 14:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans