Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] (experimental) chase and free cache only swap

[KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki]

On Wed, 27 May 2009 03:26:58 +0200
Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 09:08:13AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 May 2009 20:14:00 +0200
> > Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:18:34PM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > Just a trial/example patch.
> > > > I'd like to consider more. Better implementation idea is welcome.
> > > > 
> > > > When the system does swap-in/swap-out repeatedly, there are 
> > > > cache-only swaps in general.
> > > > Typically,
> > > >  - swapped out in past but on memory now while vm_swap_full() returns true
> > > > pages are cache-only swaps. (swap_map has no references.)
> > > > 
> > > > This cache-only swaps can be an obstacles for smooth page reclaiming.
> > > > Current implemantation is very naive, just scan & free.
> > > 
> > > I think we can just remove that vm_swap_full() check in do_swap_page()
> > > and try to remove the page from swap cache unconditionally.
> > > 
> > I'm not sure why reclaim swap entry only at write fault.
> 
> How do you come to that conclusion?  Do you mean the current code does
> that? 
yes.

2474         pte = mk_pte(page, vma->vm_page_prot);
2475         if (write_access && reuse_swap_page(page)) {
2476                 pte = maybe_mkwrite(pte_mkdirty(pte), vma);
2477                 write_access = 0;
2478         }


> Did you understand that I suggested that?
> 

I thought you suggested that swp_entry should be reclaimed in read-fault as
same way as write-fault.

Thanks,
-Kame




--
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/