Re: [PATCH 0/3 v2] mm: Batch page reclamation under shink_page_list

From: Tim Chen
Date: Wed Sep 12 2012 - 19:49:20 EST

On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 12:27 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:

> That sounds good, although more details on the performance changes
> would be appreciated - after all, that's the entire point of the
> patchset.
> And we shouldn't only test for improvements - we should also test for
> degradation. What workloads might be harmed by this change? I'd suggest
> - a single process which opens N files and reads one page from each
> one, then repeats. So there are no contiguous LRU pages which share
> the same ->mapping. Get some page reclaim happening, measure the
> impact.
> - The batching means that we now do multiple passes over pageframes
> where we used to do things in a single pass. Walking all those new
> page lists will be expensive if they are lengthy enough to cause L1
> cache evictions.

I need to address both your concerns and Mel's concerns about the
downside of prolonging the holding page locks for the pages to be
unmmaped for patch 1 in the series. I'll try to do some testing to see
what kind of benefit I get by only batching operations under the
i_mmap_mutex (i.e. patch 2 and 3 only) and not do batch unmap. Those
other changes don't have the downsides of prolonged page locking and we
can incorporate them with less risks.

> What would be a test for this? A simple, single-threaded walk
> through a file, I guess?

Thanks for your test suggestions. I will do tests along your
suggestions when I generate the next iterations of the patch.

I've been playing with these patches for a while and they are based on
3.4 kernel. I'll move them to 3.6 kernel in my next iteration.

> Mel's review comments were useful, thanks.

Very much appreciate comments from you, Mel and Minchan. I'll try to
incorporate them in my changes.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at