Re: [RFC] respect the referenced bit of KVM guest pages?

[Rik van Riel]

Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 05:09:55AM +0800, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > Side question -
> > 	Is there a good reason for this to be in shrink_active_list()
> > as opposed to __isolate_lru_page?
> >
> > 		if (unlikely(!page_evictable(page, NULL))) {
> > 			putback_lru_page(page);
> > 			continue;
> > 		}
> >
> > Maybe we want to minimize the amount of code under the lru lock or
> > avoid duplicate logic in the isolate_page functions.
>
> I guess the quick test means to avoid the expensive page_referenced()
> call that follows it. But that should be mostly one shot cost - the
> unevictable pages are unlikely to cycle in active/inactive list again
> and again.

Please read what putback_lru_page does.

It moves the page onto the unevictable list, so that
it will not end up in this scan again.

> > But if there are important mlock-heavy workloads, this could make the
> > scan come up empty, or at least emptier than we might like.
>
> Yes, if the above 'if' block is removed, the inactive lists might get
> more expensive to reclaim.

Why?

--
All rights reversed.
--
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/