Re: [PATCH] mm: disallow direct reclaim page writeback

[Minchan Kim]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:01:47PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> >> >>> > Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > > Â50) Â Â 3168 Â Â Â64 Â xfs_vm_writepage+0xab/0x160 [xfs]
>> >> >>> > > Â51) Â Â 3104 Â Â 384 Â shrink_page_list+0x65e/0x840
>> >> >>> > > Â52) Â Â 2720 Â Â 528 Â shrink_zone+0x63f/0xe10
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > A bit OFF TOPIC.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Could you share disassemble of shrink_zone() ?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > In my environ.
>> >> >>> > 00000000000115a0 <shrink_zone>:
>> >> >>> >  Â115a0:    55           Âpush  %rbp
>> >> >>> >  Â115a1:    48 89 e5        Âmov  Â%rsp,%rbp
>> >> >>> >  Â115a4:    41 57          push  %r15
>> >> >>> >  Â115a6:    41 56          push  %r14
>> >> >>> >  Â115a8:    41 55          push  %r13
>> >> >>> >  Â115aa:    41 54          push  %r12
>> >> >>> >  Â115ac:    53           Âpush  %rbx
>> >> >>> >  Â115ad:    48 83 ec 78       sub  Â$0x78,%rsp
>> >> >>> > Â Â115b1: Â Â Â e8 00 00 00 00 Â Â Â Â Âcallq Â115b6 <shrink_zone+0x16>
>> >> >>> >  Â115b6:    48 89 75 80       mov  Â%rsi,-0x80(%rbp)
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > disassemble seems to show 0x78 bytes for stack. And no changes to %rsp
>> >> >>> > until retrun.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I see the same. I didn't compile those kernels, though. IIUC,
>> >> >>> they were built through the Ubuntu build infrastructure, so there is
>> >> >>> something different in terms of compiler, compiler options or config
>> >> >>> to what we are both using. Most likely it is the compiler inlining,
>> >> >>> though Chris's patches to prevent that didn't seem to change the
>> >> >>> stack usage.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I'm trying to get a stack trace from the kernel that has shrink_zone
>> >> >>> in it, but I haven't succeeded yet....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I also got 0x78 byte stack usage. Umm.. Do we discussed real issue now?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > In my case, 0x110 byte in 32 bit machine.
>> >> > I think it's possible in 64 bit machine.
>> >> >
>> >> > 00001830 <shrink_zone>:
>> >> >  Â1830:    55           Âpush  %ebp
>> >> >  Â1831:    89 e5          mov  Â%esp,%ebp
>> >> >  Â1833:    57           Âpush  %edi
>> >> >  Â1834:    56           Âpush  %esi
>> >> >  Â1835:    53           Âpush  %ebx
>> >> >  Â1836:    81 ec 10 01 00 00    sub  Â$0x110,%esp
>> >> >  Â183c:    89 85 24 ff ff ff    mov  Â%eax,-0xdc(%ebp)
>> >> >  Â1842:    89 95 20 ff ff ff    mov  Â%edx,-0xe0(%ebp)
>> >> >  Â1848:    89 8d 1c ff ff ff    mov  Â%ecx,-0xe4(%ebp)
>> >> >  Â184e:    8b 41 04        Âmov  Â0x4(%ecx)
>> >> >
>> >> > my gcc is following as.
>> >> >
>> >> > barrios@barriostarget:~/mmotm$ gcc -v
>> >> > Using built-in specs.
>> >> > Target: i486-linux-gnu
>> >> > Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu
>> >> > 4.3.3-5ubuntu4'
>> >> > --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.3/README.Bugs
>> >> > --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr
>> >> > --enable-shared --with-system-zlib --libexecdir=/usr/lib
>> >> > --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --enable-nls
>> >> > --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.3 --program-suffix=-4.3
>> >> > --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-objc-gc
>> >> > --enable-mpfr --enable-targets=all --with-tune=generic
>> >> > --enable-checking=release --build=i486-linux-gnu --host=i486-linux-gnu
>> >> > --target=i486-linux-gnu
>> >> > Thread model: posix
>> >> > gcc version 4.3.3 (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Is it depends on config?
>> >> > I attach my config.
>> >>
>> >> I changed shrink list by noinline_for_stack.
>> >> The result is following as.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 00001fe0 <shrink_zone>:
>> >>   1fe0:    55           Âpush  %ebp
>> >>   1fe1:    89 e5          mov  Â%esp,%ebp
>> >>   1fe3:    57           Âpush  %edi
>> >>   1fe4:    56           Âpush  %esi
>> >>   1fe5:    53           Âpush  %ebx
>> >>   1fe6:    83 ec 4c        Âsub  Â$0x4c,%esp
>> >>   1fe9:    89 45 c0        Âmov  Â%eax,-0x40(%ebp)
>> >>   1fec:    89 55 bc        Âmov  Â%edx,-0x44(%ebp)
>> >>   1fef:    89 4d b8        Âmov  Â%ecx,-0x48(%ebp)
>> >>
>> >> 0x110 -> 0x4c.
>> >>
>> >> Should we have to add noinline_for_stack for shrink_list?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hmm. about shirnk_zone(), I don't think uninlining functions directly called
>> > by shrink_zone() can be a help.
>> > Total stack size of call-chain will be still big.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>> But above 500 byte usage is one of hogger and uninlining is not
>> critical about reclaim performance. So I think we don't get any lost
>> than gain.
>>
>
> Beat in mind that uninlining can slightly increase the stack usage in some
> cases because arguments, return addresses and the like have to be pushed
> onto the stack. Inlining or unlining is only the answer when it reduces the
> number of stack variables that exist at any given time.

Yes. I totally have missed it.
Thanks, Mel.

-- 
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/