Re: [PATCH RFC] fadvise: move active pages to inactive list withPOSIX_FADV_DONTNEED

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

(2011/06/23 6:51), Andrea Righi wrote:
> There were some reported problems in the past about trashing page cache
> when a backup software (i.e., rsync) touches a huge amount of pages (see
> for example [1]).
> 
> This problem has been almost fixed by the Minchan Kim's patch [2] and a
> proper use of fadvise() in the backup software. For example this patch
> set [3] has been proposed for inclusion in rsync.
> 
> However, there can be still other similar trashing problems: when the
> backup software reads all the source files, some of them may be part of
> the actual working set of the system. When a
> posix_fadvise(POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED) is performed _all_ pages are evicted
> from pagecache, both the working set and the use-once pages touched only
> by the backup software.
> 
> With the following solution when posix_fadvise(POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED) is
> called for an active page instead of removing it from the page cache it
> is added to the tail of the inactive list. Otherwise, if it's already in
> the inactive list the page is removed from the page cache.
> 
> In this way if the backup was the only user of a page, that page will
> be immediately removed from the page cache by calling
> posix_fadvise(POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED). If the page was also touched by
> other processes it'll be moved to the inactive list, having another
> chance of being re-added to the working set, or simply reclaimed when
> memory is needed.
> 
> Testcase:
> 
>   - create a 1GB file called "zero"
>   - run md5sum zero to read all the pages in page cache (this is to
>     simulate the user activity on this file)
>   - run "rsync zero zero_copy" (rsync is patched with [3])
>   - re-run md5sum zero (user activity on the working set) and measure
>     the time to complete this command
> 
> The test has been performed using 3.0.0-rc4 vanilla and with this patch
> applied (3.0.0-rc4-fadvise).
> 
> Results:
>                   avg elapsed time      block:block_bio_queue
>  3.0.0-rc4                  4.127s                      8,214
>  3.0.0-rc4-fadvise          2.146s                          0
> 
> In the first case the file is evicted from page cache completely and we
> must re-read it from the disk. In the second case the file is still in
> page cache (in the inactive list) and we don't need any other additional
> I/O operation.
> 
> [1] http://marc.info/?l=rsync&m=128885034930933&w=2
> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/20/57
> [3] http://lists.samba.org/archive/rsync/2010-November/025827.html
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  mm/swap.c     |    9 +++++----
>  mm/truncate.c |    5 ++++-
>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> index 3a442f1..fc8bb76 100644
> --- a/mm/swap.c
> +++ b/mm/swap.c
> @@ -411,10 +411,11 @@ void add_page_to_unevictable_list(struct page *page)
>   *
>   * 1. active, mapped page -> none
>   * 2. active, dirty/writeback page -> inactive, head, PG_reclaim
> - * 3. inactive, mapped page -> none
> - * 4. inactive, dirty/writeback page -> inactive, head, PG_reclaim
> - * 5. inactive, clean -> inactive, tail
> - * 6. Others -> none
> + * 3. active, clean -> inactive, tail
> + * 4. inactive, mapped page -> none
> + * 5. inactive, dirty/writeback page -> inactive, head, PG_reclaim
> + * 6. inactive, clean -> inactive, tail
> + * 7. Others -> none
>   *
>   * In 4, why it moves inactive's head, the VM expects the page would
>   * be write it out by flusher threads as this is much more effective
> diff --git a/mm/truncate.c b/mm/truncate.c
> index 3a29a61..043aabd 100644
> --- a/mm/truncate.c
> +++ b/mm/truncate.c
> @@ -357,7 +357,10 @@ unsigned long invalidate_mapping_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
>  			if (lock_failed)
>  				continue;
>  
> -			ret = invalidate_inode_page(page);
> +			if (PageActive(page))
> +				ret = 0;
> +			else
> +				ret = invalidate_inode_page(page);

So, after this patch, following comment is a bit outdated. we deactivate
the page even if it's not invalidated.

                        /*
                         * Invalidation is a hint that the page is no longer
                         * of interest and try to speed up its reclaim.
                         */

Can you please fix the comment too? Other than that,
	Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>








--
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/