lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 3/3] mm: keep pages from unevictable mappings off the LRU lists
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 05:56:52PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:53:27AM +0000, David Howells wrote:
> > > Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > - if (page_is_file_cache(page))
> > > > + if (mapping_unevictable(mapping))
> > > > + add_page_to_unevictable_list(page);
> > > > + else if (page_is_file_cache(page))
> > >
> > > It would be nice to avoid adding an extra test and branch in here. This
> > > function is used a lot, and quite often we know the answer to the first test
> > > before we even get here.
> >
> > Yes, I thought about that too. So I mounted a tmpfs and dd'd
> > /dev/zero to a file on it until it ran out of space (around 900M,
> > without swapping), deleted the file again. I did this in a tight loop
> > and profiled it.
> >
> > I couldn't think of a way that would excercise add_to_page_cache_lru()
> > more, I hope I didn't overlook anything, please correct if I am wrong.
> >
> > If I was not, than the extra checking for unevictable mappings doesn't
> > make a measurable difference. The function on the vanilla kernel had
> > a share of 0.2033%, on the patched kernel 0.1953%.
>
> May I ask the number of the cpu of your test box.
> In general, lock contention possibility depend on #ofCPUs.

Yes, sure. In this test I tried to find out how much this extra
branch makes a difference for the common path (untaken), though.

I have not tried to instrument the lock contention. But this will be
done with a quadcore system.

> So, I and lee mainly talked about large box.

Yeah, I don't have such a thing ;)

Hannes


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-26 11:41    [W:1.650 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site