From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755441Ab2BWOCF (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:02:05 -0500 Received: from mail-bk0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:58862 "EHLO mail-bk0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752135Ab2BWOCD (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:02:03 -0500 Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of koct9i@gmail.com designates 10.204.152.88 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=koct9i@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=koct9i@gmail.com Message-ID: <4F4646D6.6070900@openvz.org> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:01:58 +0400 From: Konstantin Khlebnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20120201 Iceape/2.0.14 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Hugh Dickins , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , "tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/22] mm: lru_lock splitting References: <20120220171138.22196.65847.stgit@zurg> <4F447904.90500@openvz.org> <20120222061618.GT7703@one.firstfloor.org> In-Reply-To: <20120222061618.GT7703@one.firstfloor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:11:32AM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: >> Andi Kleen wrote: >>> Konstantin Khlebnikov writes: >>> >>> Konstantin, >>> >>>> There complete patch-set with my lru_lock splitting >>>> plus all related preparations and cleanups rebased to next-20120210 >>> >>> On large systems we're also seeing lock contention on the lru_lock >>> without using memcgs. Any thoughts how this could be extended for this >>> situation too? >> >> We can split lru_lock by pfn-based interleaving. >> After all these cleanups it is very easy. I already have patch for this. > > Cool. If you send it can try it out on a large system. See last patch in v3 patchset in lkml or in git: https://github.com/koct9i/linux/commits/lruvec-v3 > > This would split the LRU by pfn too, correct? Of course, I don't see any problems with splitting large zone into some independent pages subsets. But all sub-pages in huge-page should be in one lru, that's why I use pfn-based interleaving. > > -Andi