Re: [PATCH] thp: tail page refcounting fix #5

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:45:27AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 04:28:08PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:24:17 +0200
> > Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ideally direct-io should stop calling get_page() on pages
> > > returned by get_user_pages().
> > 
> > Yeah.  get_user_pages() is sufficient.  Ideally we should be able to
> > undo the get_user_pages() get_page() from within the IO completion
> > interrupt and we're done.
> > 
> > Cc Andi, who is our resident dio tweaker ;)
>
> Noted, I'll put it on my list.

Thanks Andi!

> Should not be too difficult from a quick look, just the convoluted
> nature of direct-io.c requires a lot of double checking.

I also had a look but it wasn't trivial, I'm not even sure why
direct-io.c has to be convoluted.

If we could optimize that, we would stay within get_page_foll() which
won't need to take the compound_lock even for tail
pages. (compound_lock can't be avoided for put_page on tail pages
because it runs long after we release any VM lock)

Calling get_page/put_pages more times than necessary is never ideal, I
imagine the biggest cost is the atomic_inc on the head page that
brings in the cacheline of the head page exclusive, the compound_lock
in the second get_page shouldn't have a measurable effect, so I think
from a practical prospective it's not more worthwhile to optimize
that now, than it already was before.

> Cc Andi, who is our resident dio tweaker ;)

Thanks :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/