[PATCH 0/3] Lumpy Reclaim V5

[PATCH 0/3] Lumpy Reclaim V5

[Andy Whitcroft]

Following this email are three patches which represent the
current state of the lumpy reclaim patches; collectively lumpy V5.
This patch kit is against 2.6.21-rc3-mm2.  This stack is split out
to show the incremental changes in this version.  This contains
one fixup following on from Christoph Lameters feedback and one change
affecting scan rates.  Andrew, please consider for -mm.

Comparitive testing between lumpy-V4 and lump-V5 generally shows
a small improvement, coming from the slight increase in scanning
coming from second of the patches.

I have taken the lumpy-V3 patches and the last batch of changes
and folded them back into a single patch (collectively lumpy-V4),
updating attribution.  On top of this are are two patches the first
the result of feedback from Christoph and the latter a change which
I believe is a correctness issue for scanning rates:

lumpy-reclaim-V4: folded back base, changes incorporated are listed
  in the changelog which is included in the patch.

lumpy-back-out-removal-of-active-check-in-isolate_lru_pages:
  reinstating a BUG where the active state missmatched the lru we are
  scanning.  As pointed out by Christoph Lameter, there should not
  be a missmatch and testing confirms with this base there are none.

lumpy-only-count-taken-pages-as-scanned: when scanning an area
  around a target page taken from the LRU we will only take pages
  which match the active state.  Previously we would count the
  missmatching pages passed over as 'scanned'.  Prior to lumpy a
  page was only counted as 'scanned' if we had removed it from the
  LRU and reclaimed or rotated it back to the list.  This leads
  to reduced reclaim scanning and affects reclaim performance.
  Move to counting pages as scanned only when actually touched.

Against: 2.6.21-rc3-mm2

-apw

[PATCH 0/3] Lumpy Reclaim V5

[Andy Whitcroft]

Following this email are three patches which represent the
current state of the lumpy reclaim patches; collectively lumpy V5.
This patch kit is against 2.6.21-rc3-mm2.  This stack is split out
to show the incremental changes in this version.  This contains
one fixup following on from Christoph Lameters feedback and one change
affecting scan rates.  Andrew, please consider for -mm.

Comparitive testing between lumpy-V4 and lump-V5 generally shows
a small improvement, coming from the slight increase in scanning
coming from second of the patches.

I have taken the lumpy-V3 patches and the last batch of changes
and folded them back into a single patch (collectively lumpy-V4),
updating attribution.  On top of this are are two patches the first
the result of feedback from Christoph and the latter a change which
I believe is a correctness issue for scanning rates:

lumpy-reclaim-V4: folded back base, changes incorporated are listed
  in the changelog which is included in the patch.

lumpy-back-out-removal-of-active-check-in-isolate_lru_pages:
  reinstating a BUG where the active state missmatched the lru we are
  scanning.  As pointed out by Christoph Lameter, there should not
  be a missmatch and testing confirms with this base there are none.

lumpy-only-count-taken-pages-as-scanned: when scanning an area
  around a target page taken from the LRU we will only take pages
  which match the active state.  Previously we would count the
  missmatching pages passed over as 'scanned'.  Prior to lumpy a
  page was only counted as 'scanned' if we had removed it from the
  LRU and reclaimed or rotated it back to the list.  This leads
  to reduced reclaim scanning and affects reclaim performance.
  Move to counting pages as scanned only when actually touched.

Against: 2.6.21-rc3-mm2

-apw

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH 1/3] Lumpy Reclaim V4

[Andy Whitcroft]

When we are out of memory of a suitable size we enter reclaim.
The current reclaim algorithm targets pages in LRU order, which
is great for fairness at order-0 but highly unsuitable if you desire
pages at higher orders.  To get pages of higher order we must shoot
down a very high proportion of memory; >95% in a lot of cases.

This patch set adds a lumpy reclaim algorithm to the allocator.
It targets groups of pages at the specified order anchored at the
end of the active and inactive lists.  This encourages groups of
pages at the requested orders to move from active to inactive,
and active to free lists.  This behaviour is only triggered out of
direct reclaim when higher order pages have been requested.

This patch set is particularly effective when utilised with
an anti-fragmentation scheme which groups pages of similar
reclaimability together.

This patch set is based on Peter Zijlstra's lumpy reclaim V2 patch
which forms the foundation.  Credit to Mel Gorman for sanitity
checking.

[akpm@osdl.org: ia64 pfn_to_nid fixes and loop cleanup]
[bunk@stusta.de: static declarations for internal functions]
[a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl: initial lumpy V2 implementation]

Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>

--- 8< ----
Changes in lumpy V4:

   Andy Whitcroft:
      lumpy: isolate_lru_pages wants to specifically take active or inactive pages
      lumpy: ensure that we compare PageActive and active safely
      lumpy: update commentry on subtle comparisons and rounding assumptions
      lumpy: only check for valid pages when holes are present

Changes in lumpy V3:

   Adrian Bunk:
      lumpy-reclaim-cleanup

   Andrew Morton:
      lumpy-reclaim-v2-page_to_pfn-fix
      lumpy-reclaim-v2-tidy

   Andy Whitcroft:
      lumpy: ensure we respect zone boundaries
      lumpy: take the other active/inactive pages in the area
---
diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
index 8666f62..a9273ab 100644
--- a/fs/buffer.c
+++ b/fs/buffer.c
@@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ static void free_more_memory(void)
 	for_each_online_pgdat(pgdat) {
 		zones = pgdat->node_zonelists[gfp_zone(GFP_NOFS)].zones;
 		if (*zones)
-			try_to_free_pages(zones, GFP_NOFS);
+			try_to_free_pages(zones, 0, GFP_NOFS);
 	}
 }
 
diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
index a461480..5b9ee5a 100644
--- a/include/linux/swap.h
+++ b/include/linux/swap.h
@@ -189,7 +189,8 @@ extern int rotate_reclaimable_page(struct page *page);
 extern void swap_setup(void);
 
 /* linux/mm/vmscan.c */
-extern unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zone **, gfp_t);
+extern unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zone **zones, int order,
+					gfp_t gfp_mask);
 extern unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned long nr_pages);
 extern int vm_swappiness;
 extern int remove_mapping(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page);
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 6abe947..23917f8 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1694,7 +1694,7 @@ nofail_alloc:
 	reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab = 0;
 	p->reclaim_state = &reclaim_state;
 
-	did_some_progress = try_to_free_pages(zonelist->zones, gfp_mask);
+	did_some_progress = try_to_free_pages(zonelist->zones, order, gfp_mask);
 
 	p->reclaim_state = NULL;
 	p->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC;
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 963a1c4..bda63a0 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -68,6 +68,8 @@ struct scan_control {
 	int swappiness;
 
 	int all_unreclaimable;
+
+	int order;
 };
 
 /*
@@ -611,6 +613,41 @@ keep:
 }
 
 /*
+ * Attempt to remove the specified page from its LRU.  Only take this page
+ * if it is of the appropriate PageActive status.  Pages which are being
+ * freed elsewhere are also ignored.
+ *
+ * page:	page to consider
+ * active:	active/inactive flag only take pages of this type
+ *
+ * returns 0 on success, -ve errno on failure.
+ */
+static int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, int active)
+{
+	int ret = -EINVAL;
+
+	/*
+	 * When checking the active state, we need to be sure we are
+	 * dealing with comparible boolean values.  Take the logical not
+	 * of each.
+	 */
+	if (PageLRU(page) && (!PageActive(page) == !active)) {
+		ret = -EBUSY;
+		if (likely(get_page_unless_zero(page))) {
+			/*
+			 * Be careful not to clear PageLRU until after we're
+			 * sure the page is not being freed elsewhere -- the
+			 * page release code relies on it.
+			 */
+			ClearPageLRU(page);
+			ret = 0;
+		}
+	}
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+/*
  * zone->lru_lock is heavily contended.  Some of the functions that
  * shrink the lists perform better by taking out a batch of pages
  * and working on them outside the LRU lock.
@@ -624,38 +661,88 @@ keep:
  * @src:	The LRU list to pull pages off.
  * @dst:	The temp list to put pages on to.
  * @scanned:	The number of pages that were scanned.
+ * @order:	The caller's attempted allocation order
+ * @active:	The caller's trying to obtain active or inactive pages
  *
  * returns how many pages were moved onto *@dst.
  */
 static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
 		struct list_head *src, struct list_head *dst,
-		unsigned long *scanned)
+		unsigned long *scanned, int order, int active)
 {
 	unsigned long nr_taken = 0;
-	struct page *page;
 	unsigned long scan;
 
 	for (scan = 0; scan < nr_to_scan && !list_empty(src); scan++) {
-		struct list_head *target;
+		struct page *page;
+		unsigned long pfn;
+		unsigned long end_pfn;
+		unsigned long page_pfn;
+		int zone_id;
+
 		page = lru_to_page(src);
 		prefetchw_prev_lru_page(page, src, flags);
 
 		VM_BUG_ON(!PageLRU(page));
 
-		list_del(&page->lru);
-		target = src;
-		if (likely(get_page_unless_zero(page))) {
-			/*
-			 * Be careful not to clear PageLRU until after we're
-			 * sure the page is not being freed elsewhere -- the
-			 * page release code relies on it.
-			 */
-			ClearPageLRU(page);
-			target = dst;
+		switch (__isolate_lru_page(page, active)) {
+		case 0:
+			list_move(&page->lru, dst);
 			nr_taken++;
-		} /* else it is being freed elsewhere */
+			break;
+
+		default:
+			/* page is being freed, or is a missmatch */
+			list_move(&page->lru, src);
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		if (!order)
+			continue;
 
-		list_add(&page->lru, target);
+		/*
+		 * Attempt to take all pages in the order aligned region
+		 * surrounding the tag page.  Only take those pages of
+		 * the same active state as that tag page.  We may safely
+		 * round the target page pfn down to the requested order
+		 * as the mem_map is guarenteed valid out to MAX_ORDER,
+		 * where that page is in a different zone we will detect
+		 * it from its zone id and abort this block scan.
+		 */
+		zone_id = page_zone_id(page);
+		page_pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
+		pfn = page_pfn & ~((1 << order) - 1);
+		end_pfn = pfn + (1 << order);
+		for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn++) {
+			struct page *cursor_page;
+
+			/* The target page is in the block, ignore it. */
+			if (unlikely(pfn == page_pfn))
+				continue;
+#ifdef CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE
+			/* Avoid holes within the zone. */
+			if (unlikely(!pfn_valid(pfn)))
+				break;
+#endif
+
+			cursor_page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
+			/* Check that we have not crossed a zone boundary. */
+			if (unlikely(page_zone_id(cursor_page) != zone_id))
+				continue;
+			scan++;
+			switch (__isolate_lru_page(cursor_page, active)) {
+			case 0:
+				list_move(&cursor_page->lru, dst);
+				nr_taken++;
+				break;
+
+			case -EBUSY:
+				/* else it is being freed elsewhere */
+				list_move(&cursor_page->lru, src);
+			default:
+				break;
+			}
+		}
 	}
 
 	*scanned = scan;
@@ -685,8 +772,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
 		unsigned long nr_freed;
 
 		nr_taken = isolate_lru_pages(sc->swap_cluster_max,
-					     &zone->inactive_list,
-					     &page_list, &nr_scan);
+				     &zone->inactive_list,
+				     &page_list, &nr_scan, sc->order, 0);
 		__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE, -nr_taken);
 		zone->pages_scanned += nr_scan;
 		zone->total_scanned += nr_scan;
@@ -833,7 +920,7 @@ force_reclaim_mapped:
 	lru_add_drain();
 	spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
 	pgmoved = isolate_lru_pages(nr_pages, &zone->active_list,
-				    &l_hold, &pgscanned);
+				    &l_hold, &pgscanned, sc->order, 1);
 	zone->pages_scanned += pgscanned;
 	__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE, -pgmoved);
 	spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
@@ -1028,7 +1115,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_zones(int priority, struct zone **zones,
  * holds filesystem locks which prevent writeout this might not work, and the
  * allocation attempt will fail.
  */
-unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zone **zones, gfp_t gfp_mask)
+unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zone **zones, int order, gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
 	int priority;
 	int ret = 0;
@@ -1043,6 +1130,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zone **zones, gfp_t gfp_mask)
 		.swap_cluster_max = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX,
 		.may_swap = 1,
 		.swappiness = vm_swappiness,
+		.order = order,
 	};
 
 	delay_swap_prefetch();

[PATCH 1/3] Lumpy Reclaim V4

[Andy Whitcroft]

When we are out of memory of a suitable size we enter reclaim.
The current reclaim algorithm targets pages in LRU order, which
is great for fairness at order-0 but highly unsuitable if you desire
pages at higher orders.  To get pages of higher order we must shoot
down a very high proportion of memory; >95% in a lot of cases.

This patch set adds a lumpy reclaim algorithm to the allocator.
It targets groups of pages at the specified order anchored at the
end of the active and inactive lists.  This encourages groups of
pages at the requested orders to move from active to inactive,
and active to free lists.  This behaviour is only triggered out of
direct reclaim when higher order pages have been requested.

This patch set is particularly effective when utilised with
an anti-fragmentation scheme which groups pages of similar
reclaimability together.

This patch set is based on Peter Zijlstra's lumpy reclaim V2 patch
which forms the foundation.  Credit to Mel Gorman for sanitity
checking.

[akpm@osdl.org: ia64 pfn_to_nid fixes and loop cleanup]
[bunk@stusta.de: static declarations for internal functions]
[a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl: initial lumpy V2 implementation]

Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>

--- 8< ----
Changes in lumpy V4:

   Andy Whitcroft:
      lumpy: isolate_lru_pages wants to specifically take active or inactive pages
      lumpy: ensure that we compare PageActive and active safely
      lumpy: update commentry on subtle comparisons and rounding assumptions
      lumpy: only check for valid pages when holes are present

Changes in lumpy V3:

   Adrian Bunk:
      lumpy-reclaim-cleanup

   Andrew Morton:
      lumpy-reclaim-v2-page_to_pfn-fix
      lumpy-reclaim-v2-tidy

   Andy Whitcroft:
      lumpy: ensure we respect zone boundaries
      lumpy: take the other active/inactive pages in the area
---
diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
index 8666f62..a9273ab 100644
--- a/fs/buffer.c
+++ b/fs/buffer.c
@@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ static void free_more_memory(void)
 	for_each_online_pgdat(pgdat) {
 		zones = pgdat->node_zonelists[gfp_zone(GFP_NOFS)].zones;
 		if (*zones)
-			try_to_free_pages(zones, GFP_NOFS);
+			try_to_free_pages(zones, 0, GFP_NOFS);
 	}
 }
 
diff --git a/include/linux/swap.h b/include/linux/swap.h
index a461480..5b9ee5a 100644
--- a/include/linux/swap.h
+++ b/include/linux/swap.h
@@ -189,7 +189,8 @@ extern int rotate_reclaimable_page(struct page *page);
 extern void swap_setup(void);
 
 /* linux/mm/vmscan.c */
-extern unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zone **, gfp_t);
+extern unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zone **zones, int order,
+					gfp_t gfp_mask);
 extern unsigned long shrink_all_memory(unsigned long nr_pages);
 extern int vm_swappiness;
 extern int remove_mapping(struct address_space *mapping, struct page *page);
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 6abe947..23917f8 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1694,7 +1694,7 @@ nofail_alloc:
 	reclaim_state.reclaimed_slab = 0;
 	p->reclaim_state = &reclaim_state;
 
-	did_some_progress = try_to_free_pages(zonelist->zones, gfp_mask);
+	did_some_progress = try_to_free_pages(zonelist->zones, order, gfp_mask);
 
 	p->reclaim_state = NULL;
 	p->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC;
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index 963a1c4..bda63a0 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -68,6 +68,8 @@ struct scan_control {
 	int swappiness;
 
 	int all_unreclaimable;
+
+	int order;
 };
 
 /*
@@ -611,6 +613,41 @@ keep:
 }
 
 /*
+ * Attempt to remove the specified page from its LRU.  Only take this page
+ * if it is of the appropriate PageActive status.  Pages which are being
+ * freed elsewhere are also ignored.
+ *
+ * page:	page to consider
+ * active:	active/inactive flag only take pages of this type
+ *
+ * returns 0 on success, -ve errno on failure.
+ */
+static int __isolate_lru_page(struct page *page, int active)
+{
+	int ret = -EINVAL;
+
+	/*
+	 * When checking the active state, we need to be sure we are
+	 * dealing with comparible boolean values.  Take the logical not
+	 * of each.
+	 */
+	if (PageLRU(page) && (!PageActive(page) == !active)) {
+		ret = -EBUSY;
+		if (likely(get_page_unless_zero(page))) {
+			/*
+			 * Be careful not to clear PageLRU until after we're
+			 * sure the page is not being freed elsewhere -- the
+			 * page release code relies on it.
+			 */
+			ClearPageLRU(page);
+			ret = 0;
+		}
+	}
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+/*
  * zone->lru_lock is heavily contended.  Some of the functions that
  * shrink the lists perform better by taking out a batch of pages
  * and working on them outside the LRU lock.
@@ -624,38 +661,88 @@ keep:
  * @src:	The LRU list to pull pages off.
  * @dst:	The temp list to put pages on to.
  * @scanned:	The number of pages that were scanned.
+ * @order:	The caller's attempted allocation order
+ * @active:	The caller's trying to obtain active or inactive pages
  *
  * returns how many pages were moved onto *@dst.
  */
 static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
 		struct list_head *src, struct list_head *dst,
-		unsigned long *scanned)
+		unsigned long *scanned, int order, int active)
 {
 	unsigned long nr_taken = 0;
-	struct page *page;
 	unsigned long scan;
 
 	for (scan = 0; scan < nr_to_scan && !list_empty(src); scan++) {
-		struct list_head *target;
+		struct page *page;
+		unsigned long pfn;
+		unsigned long end_pfn;
+		unsigned long page_pfn;
+		int zone_id;
+
 		page = lru_to_page(src);
 		prefetchw_prev_lru_page(page, src, flags);
 
 		VM_BUG_ON(!PageLRU(page));
 
-		list_del(&page->lru);
-		target = src;
-		if (likely(get_page_unless_zero(page))) {
-			/*
-			 * Be careful not to clear PageLRU until after we're
-			 * sure the page is not being freed elsewhere -- the
-			 * page release code relies on it.
-			 */
-			ClearPageLRU(page);
-			target = dst;
+		switch (__isolate_lru_page(page, active)) {
+		case 0:
+			list_move(&page->lru, dst);
 			nr_taken++;
-		} /* else it is being freed elsewhere */
+			break;
+
+		default:
+			/* page is being freed, or is a missmatch */
+			list_move(&page->lru, src);
+			continue;
+		}
+
+		if (!order)
+			continue;
 
-		list_add(&page->lru, target);
+		/*
+		 * Attempt to take all pages in the order aligned region
+		 * surrounding the tag page.  Only take those pages of
+		 * the same active state as that tag page.  We may safely
+		 * round the target page pfn down to the requested order
+		 * as the mem_map is guarenteed valid out to MAX_ORDER,
+		 * where that page is in a different zone we will detect
+		 * it from its zone id and abort this block scan.
+		 */
+		zone_id = page_zone_id(page);
+		page_pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
+		pfn = page_pfn & ~((1 << order) - 1);
+		end_pfn = pfn + (1 << order);
+		for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn++) {
+			struct page *cursor_page;
+
+			/* The target page is in the block, ignore it. */
+			if (unlikely(pfn == page_pfn))
+				continue;
+#ifdef CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE
+			/* Avoid holes within the zone. */
+			if (unlikely(!pfn_valid(pfn)))
+				break;
+#endif
+
+			cursor_page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
+			/* Check that we have not crossed a zone boundary. */
+			if (unlikely(page_zone_id(cursor_page) != zone_id))
+				continue;
+			scan++;
+			switch (__isolate_lru_page(cursor_page, active)) {
+			case 0:
+				list_move(&cursor_page->lru, dst);
+				nr_taken++;
+				break;
+
+			case -EBUSY:
+				/* else it is being freed elsewhere */
+				list_move(&cursor_page->lru, src);
+			default:
+				break;
+			}
+		}
 	}
 
 	*scanned = scan;
@@ -685,8 +772,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long max_scan,
 		unsigned long nr_freed;
 
 		nr_taken = isolate_lru_pages(sc->swap_cluster_max,
-					     &zone->inactive_list,
-					     &page_list, &nr_scan);
+				     &zone->inactive_list,
+				     &page_list, &nr_scan, sc->order, 0);
 		__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE, -nr_taken);
 		zone->pages_scanned += nr_scan;
 		zone->total_scanned += nr_scan;
@@ -833,7 +920,7 @@ force_reclaim_mapped:
 	lru_add_drain();
 	spin_lock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
 	pgmoved = isolate_lru_pages(nr_pages, &zone->active_list,
-				    &l_hold, &pgscanned);
+				    &l_hold, &pgscanned, sc->order, 1);
 	zone->pages_scanned += pgscanned;
 	__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ACTIVE, -pgmoved);
 	spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock);
@@ -1028,7 +1115,7 @@ static unsigned long shrink_zones(int priority, struct zone **zones,
  * holds filesystem locks which prevent writeout this might not work, and the
  * allocation attempt will fail.
  */
-unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zone **zones, gfp_t gfp_mask)
+unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zone **zones, int order, gfp_t gfp_mask)
 {
 	int priority;
 	int ret = 0;
@@ -1043,6 +1130,7 @@ unsigned long try_to_free_pages(struct zone **zones, gfp_t gfp_mask)
 		.swap_cluster_max = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX,
 		.may_swap = 1,
 		.swappiness = vm_swappiness,
+		.order = order,
 	};
 
 	delay_swap_prefetch();

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH 2/3] lumpy: back out removal of active check in isolate_lru_pages

[Andy Whitcroft]

As pointed out by Christop Lameter it should not be possible for a
page to change its active/inactive state without taking the lru_lock.
Reinstate this safety net.

Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
---
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index bda63a0..d7a0860 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -691,10 +691,13 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
 			nr_taken++;
 			break;
 
-		default:
-			/* page is being freed, or is a missmatch */
+		case -EBUSY:
+			/* else it is being freed elsewhere */
 			list_move(&page->lru, src);
 			continue;
+
+		default:
+			BUG();
 		}
 
 		if (!order)

[PATCH 2/3] lumpy: back out removal of active check in isolate_lru_pages

[Andy Whitcroft]

As pointed out by Christop Lameter it should not be possible for a
page to change its active/inactive state without taking the lru_lock.
Reinstate this safety net.

Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
---
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index bda63a0..d7a0860 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -691,10 +691,13 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
 			nr_taken++;
 			break;
 
-		default:
-			/* page is being freed, or is a missmatch */
+		case -EBUSY:
+			/* else it is being freed elsewhere */
 			list_move(&page->lru, src);
 			continue;
+
+		default:
+			BUG();
 		}
 
 		if (!order)

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

[PATCH 3/3] lumpy: only count taken pages as scanned

[Andy Whitcroft]

When scanning the order sized area around the tag page we pull all
pages of the matching active state; the non-matching pages are not
otherwise affected.  We currently count these as scanned increasing
the apparent scan rates.  Previously we would only count a page
scanned if it was actually removed from the LRU, either then being
reclaimed or rotated back onto the head of the LRU.

The effect of this is to cause reclaim to terminate artificially
early when the scan count is reached, reducing effectivness.  Move to
counting only those pages we actually remove from the LRU as scanned.

Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
---
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index d7a0860..c3dc544 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -732,11 +732,11 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
 			/* Check that we have not crossed a zone boundary. */
 			if (unlikely(page_zone_id(cursor_page) != zone_id))
 				continue;
-			scan++;
 			switch (__isolate_lru_page(cursor_page, active)) {
 			case 0:
 				list_move(&cursor_page->lru, dst);
 				nr_taken++;
+				scan++;
 				break;
 
 			case -EBUSY:

[PATCH 3/3] lumpy: only count taken pages as scanned

[Andy Whitcroft]

When scanning the order sized area around the tag page we pull all
pages of the matching active state; the non-matching pages are not
otherwise affected.  We currently count these as scanned increasing
the apparent scan rates.  Previously we would only count a page
scanned if it was actually removed from the LRU, either then being
reclaimed or rotated back onto the head of the LRU.

The effect of this is to cause reclaim to terminate artificially
early when the scan count is reached, reducing effectivness.  Move to
counting only those pages we actually remove from the LRU as scanned.

Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
---
diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
index d7a0860..c3dc544 100644
--- a/mm/vmscan.c
+++ b/mm/vmscan.c
@@ -732,11 +732,11 @@ static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan,
 			/* Check that we have not crossed a zone boundary. */
 			if (unlikely(page_zone_id(cursor_page) != zone_id))
 				continue;
-			scan++;
 			switch (__isolate_lru_page(cursor_page, active)) {
 			case 0:
 				list_move(&cursor_page->lru, dst);
 				nr_taken++;
+				scan++;
 				break;
 
 			case -EBUSY:

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Lumpy Reclaim V4

[Dave Hansen]

On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 18:23 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> 
> +                       /* The target page is in the block, ignore it. */
> +                       if (unlikely(pfn == page_pfn))
> +                               continue;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE
> +                       /* Avoid holes within the zone. */
> +                       if (unlikely(!pfn_valid(pfn)))
> +                               break;
> +#endif 

Would having something like:

        static inline int pfn_in_zone_hole(unsigned long pfn)
        {
        #ifdef CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE
        	if (unlikely(!pfn_valid(pfn)))
        		return 1;
        #endif 
        	return 0;
        }
        
help us out?  page_is_buddy() and page_is_consistent() appear to do the
exact same thing, with the same #ifdef.

-- Dave

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Lumpy Reclaim V4

[Dave Hansen]

On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 18:23 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> 
> +                       /* The target page is in the block, ignore it. */
> +                       if (unlikely(pfn == page_pfn))
> +                               continue;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE
> +                       /* Avoid holes within the zone. */
> +                       if (unlikely(!pfn_valid(pfn)))
> +                               break;
> +#endif 

Would having something like:

        static inline int pfn_in_zone_hole(unsigned long pfn)
        {
        #ifdef CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE
        	if (unlikely(!pfn_valid(pfn)))
        		return 1;
        #endif 
        	return 0;
        }
        
help us out?  page_is_buddy() and page_is_consistent() appear to do the
exact same thing, with the same #ifdef.

-- Dave

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Lumpy Reclaim V4

[Andy Whitcroft]

Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 18:23 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> +                       /* The target page is in the block, ignore it. */
>> +                       if (unlikely(pfn == page_pfn))
>> +                               continue;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE
>> +                       /* Avoid holes within the zone. */
>> +                       if (unlikely(!pfn_valid(pfn)))
>> +                               break;
>> +#endif 
> 
> Would having something like:
> 
>         static inline int pfn_in_zone_hole(unsigned long pfn)
>         {
>         #ifdef CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE
>         	if (unlikely(!pfn_valid(pfn)))
>         		return 1;
>         #endif 
>         	return 0;
>         }
>         
> help us out?  page_is_buddy() and page_is_consistent() appear to do the
> exact same thing, with the same #ifdef.

Funny you mention that.  I have a patch hanging around which basically
does that.  I'd been planning to send it up.  It adds a
pfn_valid_within() which you use when you already know a relative page
within the MAX_ORDER block is valid.  I'd not sent it cause I thought
the name sucked.

-apw

Re: [PATCH 1/3] Lumpy Reclaim V4

[Andy Whitcroft]

Dave Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 18:23 +0000, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>> +                       /* The target page is in the block, ignore it. */
>> +                       if (unlikely(pfn == page_pfn))
>> +                               continue;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE
>> +                       /* Avoid holes within the zone. */
>> +                       if (unlikely(!pfn_valid(pfn)))
>> +                               break;
>> +#endif 
> 
> Would having something like:
> 
>         static inline int pfn_in_zone_hole(unsigned long pfn)
>         {
>         #ifdef CONFIG_HOLES_IN_ZONE
>         	if (unlikely(!pfn_valid(pfn)))
>         		return 1;
>         #endif 
>         	return 0;
>         }
>         
> help us out?  page_is_buddy() and page_is_consistent() appear to do the
> exact same thing, with the same #ifdef.

Funny you mention that.  I have a patch hanging around which basically
does that.  I'd been planning to send it up.  It adds a
pfn_valid_within() which you use when you already know a relative page
within the MAX_ORDER block is valid.  I'd not sent it cause I thought
the name sucked.

-apw

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Lumpy Reclaim V5

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:22:45 +0000 Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:

> Following this email are three patches which represent the
> current state of the lumpy reclaim patches; collectively lumpy V5.

So where do we stand with this now?    Does it make anything get better?

I (continue to) think that if this is to be truly useful, we need some way
of using it from kswapd to keep a certain minimum number of order-1,
order-2, etc pages in the freelists.

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Lumpy Reclaim V5

[Andrew Morton]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:22:45 +0000 Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:

> Following this email are three patches which represent the
> current state of the lumpy reclaim patches; collectively lumpy V5.

So where do we stand with this now?    Does it make anything get better?

I (continue to) think that if this is to be truly useful, we need some way
of using it from kswapd to keep a certain minimum number of order-1,
order-2, etc pages in the freelists.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Lumpy Reclaim V5

[Andy Whitcroft]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:22:45 +0000 Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
> 
>> Following this email are three patches which represent the
>> current state of the lumpy reclaim patches; collectively lumpy V5.
> 
> So where do we stand with this now?    Does it make anything get better?

I am still working to fairly compare the various combinations.  One of
the problems is that if you push any reclaim algorithm to its physical
limits you will get the same overall success rates.

I think there is still some work to do refining lumpy, and reclaim in
general.  But I feel what we have now is pretty solid base for that.

> I (continue to) think that if this is to be truly useful, we need some way
> of using it from kswapd to keep a certain minimum number of order-1,
> order-2, etc pages in the freelists.

I think this is a key component of the mix and am just starting to play
with this.  I hope that this can provide improvements in the
instantaneous availability of these higher orders and improve average
latency.

-apw

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Lumpy Reclaim V5

[Andy Whitcroft]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 18:22:45 +0000 Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org> wrote:
> 
>> Following this email are three patches which represent the
>> current state of the lumpy reclaim patches; collectively lumpy V5.
> 
> So where do we stand with this now?    Does it make anything get better?

I am still working to fairly compare the various combinations.  One of
the problems is that if you push any reclaim algorithm to its physical
limits you will get the same overall success rates.

I think there is still some work to do refining lumpy, and reclaim in
general.  But I feel what we have now is pretty solid base for that.

> I (continue to) think that if this is to be truly useful, we need some way
> of using it from kswapd to keep a certain minimum number of order-1,
> order-2, etc pages in the freelists.

I think this is a key component of the mix and am just starting to play
with this.  I hope that this can provide improvements in the
instantaneous availability of these higher orders and improve average
latency.

-apw

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>