lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH] Replace page_mapping_inuse() with page_mapped()
Date
> On 12/01/2009 09:55 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> btw, current shrink_active_list() have unnecessary page_mapping_inuse() call.
> >> it prevent to drop page reference bit from unmapped cache page. it mean
> >> we protect unmapped cache page than mapped page. it is strange.
> >>
> > How about this?
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > SplitLRU VM replacement algorithm assume shrink_active_list() clear
> > the page's reference bit. but unnecessary page_mapping_inuse() test
> > prevent it.
> >
> > This patch remove it.
> >
> Shrink_page_list ignores the referenced bit on pages
> that are !page_mapping_inuse().
>
> if (sc->order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
> referenced &&
> page_mapping_inuse(page)
> && !(vm_flags & VM_LOCKED))
> goto activate_locked;
>
> The reason we leave the referenced bit on unmapped
> pages is that we want the next reference to a deactivated
> page cache page to move that page back to the active
> list. We do not want to require that such a page gets
> accessed twice before being reactivated while on the
> inactive list, because (1) we know it was a frequently
> accessed page already and (2) ongoing streaming IO
> might evict it from the inactive list before it gets accessed
> twice.
>
> Arguably, we should just replace the page_mapping_inuse()
> in both places with page_mapped() to simplify things.

Ah, yes. /me was slept. thanks correct me.


From 61340720e6e66b645db8d5410e89fd3b67eda907 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:05:26 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Replace page_mapping_inuse() with page_mapped()

page reclaim logic need to distingish mapped and unmapped pages.
However page_mapping_inuse() don't provide proper test way. it test
the address space (i.e. file) is mmpad(). Why `page' reclaim need
care unrelated page's mapped state? it's unrelated.

Thus, This patch replace page_mapping_inuse() with page_mapped()

Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
mm/vmscan.c | 25 ++-----------------------
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 00156f2..350b9cc 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -277,27 +277,6 @@ unsigned long shrink_slab(unsigned long scanned, gfp_t gfp_mask,
return ret;
}

-/* Called without lock on whether page is mapped, so answer is unstable */
-static inline int page_mapping_inuse(struct page *page)
-{
- struct address_space *mapping;
-
- /* Page is in somebody's page tables. */
- if (page_mapped(page))
- return 1;
-
- /* Be more reluctant to reclaim swapcache than pagecache */
- if (PageSwapCache(page))
- return 1;
-
- mapping = page_mapping(page);
- if (!mapping)
- return 0;
-
- /* File is mmap'd by somebody? */
- return mapping_mapped(mapping);
-}
-
static inline int is_page_cache_freeable(struct page *page)
{
/*
@@ -663,7 +642,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list,
* try_to_unmap moves it to unevictable list
*/
if (sc->order <= PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER &&
- referenced && page_mapping_inuse(page)
+ referenced && page_mapped(page)
&& !(vm_flags & VM_LOCKED))
goto activate_locked;

@@ -1347,7 +1326,7 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long nr_pages, struct zone *zone,
}

/* page_referenced clears PageReferenced */
- if (page_mapping_inuse(page) &&
+ if (page_mapped(page) &&
page_referenced(page, 0, sc->mem_cgroup, &vm_flags)) {
nr_rotated++;
/*
--
1.6.5.2






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-02 04:31    [W:0.067 / U:0.476 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site