lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] fadvise: move active pages to inactive list with POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:15:26PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> (2011/06/23 6:51), Andrea Righi wrote:
> > There were some reported problems in the past about trashing page cache
> > when a backup software (i.e., rsync) touches a huge amount of pages (see
> > for example [1]).
> >
> > This problem has been almost fixed by the Minchan Kim's patch [2] and a
> > proper use of fadvise() in the backup software. For example this patch
> > set [3] has been proposed for inclusion in rsync.
> >
> > However, there can be still other similar trashing problems: when the
> > backup software reads all the source files, some of them may be part of
> > the actual working set of the system. When a
> > posix_fadvise(POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED) is performed _all_ pages are evicted
> > from pagecache, both the working set and the use-once pages touched only
> > by the backup software.
> >
> > With the following solution when posix_fadvise(POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED) is
> > called for an active page instead of removing it from the page cache it
> > is added to the tail of the inactive list. Otherwise, if it's already in
> > the inactive list the page is removed from the page cache.
> >
> > In this way if the backup was the only user of a page, that page will
> > be immediately removed from the page cache by calling
> > posix_fadvise(POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED). If the page was also touched by
> > other processes it'll be moved to the inactive list, having another
> > chance of being re-added to the working set, or simply reclaimed when
> > memory is needed.
> >
> > Testcase:
> >
> > - create a 1GB file called "zero"
> > - run md5sum zero to read all the pages in page cache (this is to
> > simulate the user activity on this file)
> > - run "rsync zero zero_copy" (rsync is patched with [3])
> > - re-run md5sum zero (user activity on the working set) and measure
> > the time to complete this command
> >
> > The test has been performed using 3.0.0-rc4 vanilla and with this patch
> > applied (3.0.0-rc4-fadvise).
> >
> > Results:
> > avg elapsed time block:block_bio_queue
> > 3.0.0-rc4 4.127s 8,214
> > 3.0.0-rc4-fadvise 2.146s 0
> >
> > In the first case the file is evicted from page cache completely and we
> > must re-read it from the disk. In the second case the file is still in
> > page cache (in the inactive list) and we don't need any other additional
> > I/O operation.
> >
> > [1] http://marc.info/?l=rsync&m=128885034930933&w=2
> > [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/20/57
> > [3] http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2010-November/025827.html
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
> > ---
> > mm/swap.c | 9 +++++----
> > mm/truncate.c | 5 ++++-
> > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> > index 3a442f1..fc8bb76 100644
> > --- a/mm/swap.c
> > +++ b/mm/swap.c
> > @@ -411,10 +411,11 @@ void add_page_to_unevictable_list(struct page *page)
> > *
> > * 1. active, mapped page -> none
> > * 2. active, dirty/writeback page -> inactive, head, PG_reclaim
> > - * 3. inactive, mapped page -> none
> > - * 4. inactive, dirty/writeback page -> inactive, head, PG_reclaim
> > - * 5. inactive, clean -> inactive, tail
> > - * 6. Others -> none
> > + * 3. active, clean -> inactive, tail
> > + * 4. inactive, mapped page -> none
> > + * 5. inactive, dirty/writeback page -> inactive, head, PG_reclaim
> > + * 6. inactive, clean -> inactive, tail
> > + * 7. Others -> none
> > *
> > * In 4, why it moves inactive's head, the VM expects the page would
> > * be write it out by flusher threads as this is much more effective
> > diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c
> > index 3a29a61..043aabd 100644
> > --- a/mm/truncate.c
> > +++ b/mm/truncate.c
> > @@ -357,7 +357,10 @@ unsigned long invalidate_mapping_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> > if (lock_failed)
> > continue;
> >
> > - ret = invalidate_inode_page(page);
> > + if (PageActive(page))
> > + ret = 0;
> > + else
> > + ret = invalidate_inode_page(page);
>
> So, after this patch, following comment is a bit outdated. we deactivate
> the page even if it's not invalidated.
>
> /*
> * Invalidation is a hint that the page is no longer
> * of interest and try to speed up its reclaim.
> */
>
> Can you please fix the comment too? Other than that,
> Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>

OK, will fix the comment and post a new version soon.

Thanks for reviewing,
-Andrea


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-23 08:21    [W:0.108 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site