Re: [RFC 1/2] deactive invalidated pages

[Minchan Kim]

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:45:15 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Andrew Morton
>> <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:23:33 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Andrew Morton
>> >> <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:52:05 +0900 Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> +/*
>> >> >> >> + * Function used to forecefully demote a page to the head of the inactive
>> >> >> >> + * list.
>> >> >> >> + */
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This comment is wrong? __The page gets moved to the _tail_ of the
>> >> >> > inactive list?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No. I add it in _head_ of the inactive list intentionally.
>> >> >> Why I don't add it to _tail_ is that I don't want to be aggressive.
>> >> >> The page might be real working set. So I want to give a chance to
>> >> >> activate it again.
>> >> >
>> >> > Well.. __why? __The user just tried to toss the page away altogether. __If
>> >> > the kernel wasn't able to do that immediately, the best it can do is to
>> >> > toss the page away asap?
>> >> >
>> >> >> If it's not working set, it can be reclaimed easily and it can prevent
>> >> >> active page demotion since inactive list size would be big enough for
>> >> >> not calling shrink_active_list.
>> >> >
>> >> > What is "working set"? __Mapped and unmapped pagecache, or are you
>> >> > referring solely to mapped pagecache?
>> >>
>> >> I mean it's mapped by other processes.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > If it's mapped pagecache then the user was being a bit silly (or didn't
>> >> > know that some other process had mapped the file). __In which case we
>> >> > need to decide what to do - leave the page alone, deactivate it, or
>> >> > half-deactivate it as this patch does.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> What I want is the half-deactivate.
>> >>
>> >> Okay. We will use the result of invalidate_inode_page.
>> >> If fail happens by page_mapped, we can do half-deactivate.
>> >> But if fail happens by dirty(ex, writeback), we can add it to tail.
>> >> Does it make sense?
>> >
>> > Spose so. __It's unobvious.
>> >
>> > If the page is dirty or under writeback then reclaim will immediately
>> > move it to the head of the LRU anyway. __But given that the user has
>>
>> Why does it move into head of LRU?
>> If the page which isn't mapped doesn't have PG_referenced, it would be
>> reclaimed.
>
> If it's dirty or under writeback it can't be reclaimed!

I see your point. And it's why I add it to head of inactive list.

>
>> > just freed a bunch of pages with invalidate(), it's unlikely that
>> > reclaim will be running soon.
>>
>> If reclaim doesn't start soon, it's good. That's because we have a
>> time to activate it and
>> when reclaim happens, reclaimer can reclaim pages easily.
>>
>> If I don't understand your point, could you elaborate on it?
>
> If reclaim doesn't happen soon and the page was dirty or under
> writeback (and hence unreclaimable) then there's a better chance that
> it _will_ be reclaimable by the time reclaim comes along and has a look
> at it.  Yes, that's good.
>
> And a note to Mel: this is one way in which we can get significant
> (perhaps tremendous) numbers of dirty pages coming off the tail of the
> LRU, and hence eligible for pageout() treatment.
>

I think you agree my as-is approach. Right?
Then, could you revert your fixlet?
I will add additional description with your fix.


-- 
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/