Re: [RFC 1/8] Only isolate page we can handle

[Minchan Kim]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:54 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:25:18 +0900
> Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> There are some places to isolate lru page and I believe
>> users of isolate_lru_page will be growing.
>> The purpose of them is each different so part of isolated pages
>> should put back to LRU, again.
>>
>> The problem is when we put back the page into LRU,
>> we lose LRU ordering and the page is inserted at head of LRU list.
>> It makes unnecessary LRU churning so that vm can evict working set pages
>> rather than idle pages.
>>
>> This patch adds new filter mask when we isolate page in LRU.
>> So, we don't isolate pages if we can't handle it.
>> It could reduce LRU churning.
>>
>> This patch shouldn't change old behavior.
>> It's just used by next patches.
>>
>> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> nitpick below.
>
>> ---
>> Âinclude/linux/swap.h | Â Â3 ++-
>> Âmm/compaction.c   Â|  Â2 +-
>> Âmm/memcontrol.c   Â|  Â2 +-
>> Âmm/vmscan.c     Â|  26 ++++++++++++++++++++------
>> Â4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
>> index 384eb5f..baef4ad 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/swap.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/swap.h
>> @@ -259,7 +259,8 @@ extern unsigned long mem_cgroup_shrink_node_zone(struct mem_cgroup *mem,
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â unsigned int swappiness,
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â struct zone *zone,
>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â unsigned long *nr_scanned);
>> -extern int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, int mode, int file);
>> +extern int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, int mode, int file,
>> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â int not_dirty, int not_mapped);
>
> Hmm, which is better to use 4 binary args or a flag with bitmask ?

Yes. Even I added new flags one more in next patch.
So I try to use bitmask flag in next version.
Thanks.


>
> Thanks,
> -Kame
>
>



-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/