lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] mm: memcontrol: use page lists for uncharge batching
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 05:29:36PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 07-07-14 14:55:58, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > Pages are now uncharged at release time, and all sources of batched
> > uncharges operate on lists of pages. Directly use those lists, and
> > get rid of the per-task batching state.
> >
> > This also batches statistics accounting, in addition to the res
> > counter charges, to reduce IRQ-disabling and re-enabling.
>
> It is probably worth noticing that there is a higher chance of missing
> threshold events now when we can accumulate huge number of uncharges
> during munmaps. I do not think this is earth shattering and the overall
> improvement is worth it but changelog should mention it.

Does this actually matter, though? We might deliver events a few
pages later than before, but as I read the threshold code, once
invoked it catches up from the last delivered threshold to the new
usage. So we shouldn't *miss* any events.

> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
>
> With the follow up fix from
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=140552814228135&w=2
>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>

Thanks!

> > +static void uncharge_list(struct list_head *page_list)
> > +{
> > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = NULL;
> > + unsigned long nr_memsw = 0;
> > + unsigned long nr_anon = 0;
> > + unsigned long nr_file = 0;
> > + unsigned long nr_huge = 0;
> > + unsigned long pgpgout = 0;
> > + unsigned long nr_mem = 0;
> > + struct list_head *next;
> > + struct page *page;
> > +
> > + next = page_list->next;
> > + do {
>
> I would use list_for_each_entry here which would also save list_empty
> check in mem_cgroup_uncharge_list

list_for_each_entry() wouldn't work for the singleton list where we
pass in page->lru. That's why it's a do-while that always does the
first page before checking whether it looped back to the list head.

Do we need a comment for that? I'm not convinced, there are only two
callsites, and the one that passes the singleton page->lru is right
below this function.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-18 17:41    [W:0.047 / U:0.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site