lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [patch 113/131] mm: balance LRU lists based on relative thrashing
2020년 6월 9일 (화) 오후 11:46, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>님이 작성:
>
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2020 at 05:15:33PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> >
> >
> > 在 2020/6/4 上午7:03, Andrew Morton 写道:
> > >
> > > + /* XXX: Move to lru_cache_add() when it supports new vs putback */
> >
> > Hi Hannes,
> >
> > Sorry for a bit lost, would you like to explain a bit more of your idea here?
> >
> > > + spin_lock_irq(&page_pgdat(page)->lru_lock);
> > > + lru_note_cost(page);
> > > + spin_unlock_irq(&page_pgdat(page)->lru_lock);
> > > +
> >
> >
> > What could we see here w/o the lru_lock?
>
> It'll just be part of the existing LRU locking in
> pagevec_lru_move_fn(), when the new pages are added to the LRU in
> batch. See this older patch for example:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20160606194836.3624-6-hannes@cmpxchg.org/
>
> I didn't include it in this series to reduce conflict with Joonsoo's
> WIP series that also operates in this area and does something similar:

Thanks!

> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/3/63

I haven't completed the rebase of my series but I guess that referenced patch
"https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/3/63" would be removed in the next version.

Before the I/O cost model, a new anonymous page contributes to the LRU reclaim
balance. But, now, a new anonymous page doesn't contributes to the I/O cost
so this adjusting patch would not be needed anymore.

If anyone wants to change this part,
"/* XXX: Move to lru_cache_add() when it supports new vs putback */", feel free
to do it.

Thanks.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-10 07:25    [W:0.051 / U:0.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site