[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/10] mm/memcg: introduce page_relock_lruvec
    On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:33:20 -0800 (PST)
    Hugh Dickins <> wrote:

    > Delete the mem_cgroup_page_lruvec() which we just added, replacing
    > it and nearby spin_lock_irq or spin_lock_irqsave of zone->lru_lock:
    > in most places by page_lock_lruvec() or page_relock_lruvec() (the
    > former being a simple case of the latter) or just by lock_lruvec().
    > unlock_lruvec() does the spin_unlock_irqrestore for them all.

    Wow..removed ;)

    > page_relock_lruvec() is born from that "pagezone" pattern in swap.c
    > and vmscan.c, where we loop over an array of pages, switching lock
    > whenever the zone changes: bearing in mind that if we were to refine
    > that lock to per-memcg per-zone, then we would have to switch whenever
    > the memcg changes too.
    > page_relock_lruvec(page, &lruvec) locates the right lruvec for page,
    > unlocks the old lruvec if different (and not NULL), locks the new,
    > and updates lruvec on return: so that we shall have just one routine
    > to locate and lock the lruvec, whereas originally it got re-evaluated
    > at different stages. But I don't yet know how to satisfy sparse(1).

    Ok, I like page_relock_lruvec().

    > There are some loops where we never change zone, and a non-memcg kernel
    > would not change memcg: use no-op mem_cgroup_page_relock_lruvec() there.
    > In compaction's isolate_migratepages(), although we do know the zone,
    > we don't know the lruvec in advance: allow for taking the lock later,
    > and reorganize its cond_resched() lock-dropping accordingly.
    > page_relock_lruvec() (and its wrappers) is actually an _irqsave operation:
    > there are a few cases in swap.c where it may be needed at interrupt time
    > (to free or to rotate a page on I/O completion). Ideally(?) we would use
    > straightforward _irq disabling elsewhere, but the variants get confusing,
    > and page_relock_lruvec() will itself grow more complicated in subsequent
    > patches: so keep it simple for now with just the one irqsaver everywhere.
    > Passing an irqflags argument/pointer down several levels looks messy
    > too, and I'm reluctant to add any more to the page reclaim stack: so
    > save the irqflags alongside the lru_lock and restore them from there.
    > It's a little sad now to be including mm.h in swap.h to get page_zone();
    > but I think that swap.h (despite its name) is the right place for these
    > lru functions, and without those inlines the optimizer cannot do so
    > well in the !MEM_RES_CTLR case.
    > (Is this an appropriate place to confess? that even at the end of the
    > series, we're left with a small bug in putback_inactive_pages(), one
    > that I've not yet decided is worth fixing: reclaim_stat there is from
    > the lruvec on entry, but we might update stats after dropping its lock.
    > And do zone->pages_scanned and zone->all_unreclaimable need locking?
    > page_alloc.c thinks zone->lock, vmscan.c thought zone->lru_lock,
    > and that weakens if we now split lru_lock by memcg.)
    > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <>

    No perforamce impact by replacing spin_lock_irq()/spin_unlock_irq() to
    spin_lock_irqsave() and spin_unlock_irqrestore() ?


     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-21 09:43    [W:0.034 / U:11.528 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site