Re: Regression - locking (all from 2.6.28)

From: Catalin Marinas
Date: Thu Mar 05 2009 - 13:05:50 EST


On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 16:54 -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 15:01 +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > + /* mem_map scanning */
> > > + for_each_online_node(i) {
> > > + struct page *page, *end;
> > > +
> > > + page = NODE_MEM_MAP(i);
> > > + end = page + NODE_DATA(i)->node_spanned_pages;
> > > +
> > > + scan_block(page, end, NULL);
> > > + }
[...]
> The above is *not* a valid code sequence.
>
> It is valid with discontig, but isn't valid for sparsemem. You simply
> can't expect to do math on 'struct page' pointers for any granularity
> larger than MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES.
>
> Also, we don't even define NODE_MEM_MAP() for all configurations so that
> code snippet won't even compile. We would be smart to kill that macro.
>
> One completely unoptimized thing you can do which will scan a 'struct
> page' at a time is this:
>
> for_each_online_node(i) {
> unsigned long pfn;
> for (pfn = node_start_pfn(i); pfn < node_end_pfn(i); pfn++) {
> struct page *page;
> if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
> continue;
> page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> scan_block(page, page+1, NULL);
> }
> }
>
> The way to optimize it would be to call scan_block() only once for each
> MAX_ORDER_NR_PAGES that you encounter. The other option would be to use
> the active_regions functions to walk the memory.
>
> Is there a requirement to reduce the number of calls to scan_block()
> here?

I think the improvement wouldn't be that big since scan_block() is
pretty time consuming as it checks every value that looks like a pointer
against a prio_tree.

BTW, is there a way to know whether the page is in use or on the free
list? Is page_count(page) feasible?

Thanks.

--
Catalin

--
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/