From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] mm: de-skew page refcount
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 08:36:14 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601190756390.3240@g5.osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060119140039.GA958@wotan.suse.de>
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> But actually it doesn't matter that we might touch page_count, only
> that we not clear PageLRU. So the enabler is simply moving the
> TestClearPageLRU after the get_page_testone.
One side note on your patch: the pure bit _test_ operation is very cheap,
but the "bit change" operation is very expensive (and not really any less
expensive than the "test-and-change" one).
So the patch to avoid "test_and_clear_bit()" really helps only if the test
usually results in us not doing the clear. Is that the case? Hmm..
So I _think_ that at least the case in "isolate_lru_page()", you'd
actually be better off doing the "test-and-clear" instead of separate
"test" and "clear-bit" ops, no? In that one, it would seem that 99+% of
the time, the bit is set (because we tested it just before getting the
lock).
No?
> I needed the de-skewing patch for something unrelated and it seemed that
> it opened the possibility for the following optimisations (ie. because
> we no longer touch a page after its refcount goes to zero).
>
> But actually it doesn't matter that we might touch page_count, only
> that we not clear PageLRU. So the enabler is simply moving the
> TestClearPageLRU after the get_page_testone.
Yes.
Now, that whole "we might touch the page count" thing does actually worry
me a bit. The locking rules are subtle (but they -seem- safe: before we
actually really put the page on the free-list in the freeing path, we'll
have locked the LRU list if it was on one).
But if you were to change _that_ one to a
atomic_add_unless(&page->counter, 1, -1);
I think that would be a real cleanup. And at that point I won't even
complain that "atomic_inc_test()" is faster - that "get_page_testone()"
thing is just fundamentally a bit scary, so I'd applaud it regardless.
(The difference: the "counter skewing" may be unexpected, but it's just a
simple trick. In contrast, the "touch the count after the page may be
already in the freeing stage" is a scary subtle thing. Even if I can't
see any actual bug in it, it just worries me in a way that offsetting a
counter by one does not..)
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-01-19 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-01-18 10:40 [patch 0/4] mm: de-skew page refcount Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 10:40 ` [patch 1/4] mm: page refcount use atomic primitives Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 10:40 ` [patch 2/4] mm: PageLRU no testset Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 17:48 ` Nikita Danilov
2006-01-19 18:10 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 10:40 ` [patch 3/3] mm: PageActive " Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 14:13 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-01-19 14:50 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 16:52 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-01-19 20:02 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 21:41 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2006-01-18 10:41 ` [patch 4/4] mm: less atomic ops Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 16:38 ` [patch 0/4] mm: de-skew page refcount Linus Torvalds
2006-01-18 17:05 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-18 19:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-19 14:00 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 16:36 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2006-01-19 17:06 ` Nick Piggin
2006-01-19 17:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-01-19 17:38 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0601190756390.3240@g5.osdl.org \
--to=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).