Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:32:49 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [patch v3] swap: virtual swap readahead |
| |
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:11:32 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 03:45:08PM +0800, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > Hi Fengguang, > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 01:03:42PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 03:37:02AM +0800, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 09:01:28PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > > [resend with lists cc'd, sorry] > > > > > > > > [and fixed Hugh's email. crap] > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > here is a new iteration of the virtual swap readahead. Per Hugh's > > > > > suggestion, I moved the pte collecting to the callsite and thus out > > > > > ouf swap code. Unfortunately, I had to bound page_cluster due to an > > > > > array of that many swap entries on the stack, but I think it is better > > > > > to limit the cluster size to a sane maximum than using dynamic > > > > > allocation for this purpose. > > > > > > Hi Johannes, > > > > > > When stress testing your patch, I found it triggered many OOM kills. > > > Around the time of last OOMs, the memory usage is: > > > > > > total used free shared buffers cached > > > Mem: 474 468 5 0 0 239 > > > -/+ buffers/cache: 229 244 > > > Swap: 1023 221 802 > > > > Wow, that really confused me for a second as we shouldn't read more > > pages ahead than without the patch, probably even less under stress. > > Yup - swap readahead is much more challenging than sequential readahead, > in that it must be accurate enough given some really obscure patterns. > > > So the problem has to be a runaway reading. And indeed, severe > > stupidity here: > > > > + window = cluster << PAGE_SHIFT; > > + min = addr & ~(window - 1); > > + max = min + cluster; > > + /* > > + * To keep the locking/highpte mapping simple, stay > > + * within the PTE range of one PMD entry. > > + */ > > + limit = addr & PMD_MASK; > > + if (limit > min) > > + min = limit; > > + limit = pmd_addr_end(addr, max); > > + if (limit < max) > > + max = limit; > > + limit = max - min; > > > > The mistake is at the initial calculation of max. It should be > > > > max = min + window; > > > > The resulting problem is that min could get bigger than max when > > cluster is bigger than PMD_SHIFT. Did you use page_cluster == 5? > > No I use the default 3. > > btw, the mistake reflects bad named variables. How about rename > cluster => pages > window => bytes > ? > > > The initial min is aligned to a value below the PMD boundary and max > > based on it with a too small offset, staying below the PMD boundary as > > well. When min is rounded up, this becomes a bit large: > > > > limit = max - min; > > > > So if my brain is already functioning, fixing the initial max should > > be enough because either > > > > o window is smaller than PMD_SIZE, than we won't round down > > below a PMD boundary in the first place or > > > > o window is bigger than PMD_SIZE, than we can round down below > > a PMD boundary but adding window to that is garuanteed to > > cross the boundary again > > > > and thus max is always bigger than min. > > > > Fengguang, does this make sense? If so, the patch below should fix > > it. > > Too bad, a quick test of the below patch freezes the box.. >
+ window = cluster << PAGE_SHIFT; + min = addr & ~(window - 1); + max = min + cluster;
max = min + window; # this is fixed. then,
+ /* + * To keep the locking/highpte mapping simple, stay + * within the PTE range of one PMD entry. + */ + limit = addr & PMD_MASK; + if (limit > min) + min = limit; + limit = pmd_addr_end(addr, max); + if (limit < max) + max = limit; + limit = max - min;
limit = (max - min) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+ ptep = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, min, &ptl); + for (i = nr = 0; i < limit; i++) + if (is_swap_pte(ptep[i])) + entries[nr++] = pte_to_swp_entry(ptep[i]); + pte_unmap_unlock(ptep, ptl);
Cheer!, -Kame
| |