[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-mm
Subject:    Re: [PATCH]: 1/4 batch mark_page_accessed()
From:       Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti () cyclades ! com>
Date:       2004-11-30 22:57:07
Message-ID: 20041130225707.GA2315 () dmt ! cyclades
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 05:33:23PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com> wrote:
> >
> > Because the ordering of LRU pages should be enhanced in respect to locality, 
> >  with the mark_page_accessed batching you group together tasks accessed pages 
> >  and move them at once to the active list. 
> > 
> >  You maintain better locality ordering, while decreasing the precision of aging/
> >  temporal locality.
> > 
> >  Which should enhance disk writeout performance.
> 
> I'll buy that explanation.  Although I'm a bit sceptical that it is
> measurable.

Its just a theory that makes sense to me, but yes we need to be measure it.

> Was that particular workload actually performing significant amounts of
> writeout in vmscan.c?  (We should have direct+kswapd counters for that, but
> we don't.  /proc/vmstat:pgrotated will give us an idea).

I strongly believe so, its a memory hungry benchmark - I'll collect status later 
on this week or the next.

> >  On the other hand, without batching you mix the locality up in LRU - the LRU becomes 
> >  more precise in terms of "LRU aging", but less ordered in terms of sequential 
> >  access pattern.
> > 
> >  The disk IO intensive reaim has very significant gain from the batching, its
> >  probably due to the enhanced LRU ordering (what Nikita says).
> > 
> >  The slowdown is probably due to the additional atomic_inc by page_cache_get(). 
> > 
> >  Is there no way to avoid such page_cache_get there (and in lru_cache_add also)?
> 
> Not really.  The page is only in the pagevec at that time - if someone does
> a put_page() on it the page will be freed for real, and will then be
> spilled onto the LRU.  Messy. 

We could handle such situation on allocation and during vmscan - maybe its doable.
Just pondering, maybe its indeed too messy to even ponder about.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]