Re: [pagevec] resize pagevec to O(lg(NR_CPUS))

[Andrew Morton]

William Lee Irwin III <wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> A large stream of faults to map in a file will blow L1 caches of the
>  sizes you've mentioned at every kernel/user context switch. 256 distinct
>  cachelines will very easily be referenced between faults. MAP_POPULATE
>  and mlock() don't implement batching for either ->page_table_lock or
>  ->tree_lock, so the pagevec point is moot in pagetable instantiation
>  codepaths (though it probably shouldn't be).

Instantiation via normal fault-in becomes lock-intensive once you have
enough CPUs.  At low CPU count the page zeroing probably preponderates.

>  O_DIRECT writes and msync(..., ..., MS_SYNC) will use pagevecs on
>  ->tree_lock in a rapid-fire process-triggerable manner. Almost all
>  uses of pagevecs for ->lru_lock outside the scanner that I'm aware
>  of are not rapid-fire in nature (though there probably should be some).

pagetable teardown (munmap, mremap, exit) is the place where pagevecs help
->lru_lock.  And truncate.

>  IMHO pagevecs are somewhat underutilized.
> 

Possibly.  I wouldn't bother converting anything unless a profiler tells
you to though.

>  Sorry, 4*lg(NR_CPUS) is 64 when lg(NR_CPUS) = 16, or 65536 cpus. 512x
>  Altixen would have 4*lg(512) = 4*9 = 36. The 4*lg(NR_CPUS) sizing was
>  rather conservative on behalf of users of stack-allocated pagevecs.

It's pretty simple to diddle PAGEVEC_SIZE, run a few benchmarks.  If that
makes no difference then the discussion is moot.  If it makes a significant
difference then more investigation is warranted.

-
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/