Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-23 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:22:08 +1100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not sure how well that translates to real world workloads, but it > might help somewhere. Admittedly some of the patches are pretty > complex... I like your patch series. They are completely orthogonal to my patches thou

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-23 Thread Nick Piggin
On Saturday 22 December 2007 01:17, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:52:19 +1100 > > Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BTW. if you have any workloads that are limited by page reclaim, > > especially unmapped file backed pagecache reclaim, then I have some > > stright-line-speed

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-21 Thread Lee Schermerhorn
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 10:33 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:19:00 -0800 (PST) > Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > These mlocked pages don't need to be on a non-reclaimable list, > > > because we can find them a

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-21 Thread Rik van Riel
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:52:19 +1100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW. if you have any workloads that are limited by page reclaim, > especially unmapped file backed pagecache reclaim, then I have some > stright-line-speedup patches which you might find interesting (I can > send them if y

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-21 Thread Nick Piggin
On Friday 21 December 2007 07:56, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:04:26 -0500 > > Lee Schermerhorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:45 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100 > > > > > > Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > H

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-20 Thread Rik van Riel
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:04:26 -0500 Lee Schermerhorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:45 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100 > > Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hmm, I still don't know (or forgot) why you don't just use the > > > old s

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-20 Thread Rik van Riel
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 23:19:00 -0800 (PST) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > These mlocked pages don't need to be on a non-reclaimable list, > > because we can find them again via the ptes when they become > > unlocked, and there is no poin

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-19 Thread Christoph Lameter
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > These mlocked pages don't need to be on a non-reclaimable list, > because we can find them again via the ptes when they become > unlocked, and there is no point background scanning them, because > they're always going to be locked while they're mlocked. B

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-19 Thread Nick Piggin
On Thursday 20 December 2007 00:45, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100 > > Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > Rework of a patch by Nick Piggin -- part 1 of 2. > > > > > > This patch: > > > > > > 1) defines

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-19 Thread Lee Schermerhorn
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 09:53 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:24:07 +0100 > Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I thought Lee had patches that moved pages with long rmap chains (both > > anon and file) out onto the non-reclaim list, for those a slow > > background sca

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-19 Thread Lee Schermerhorn
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:45 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100 > Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > > Rework of a patch by Nick Piggin -- part 1 of 2. > > > > > > This patch: > > > > > > 1) def

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-19 Thread Rik van Riel
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:24:07 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought Lee had patches that moved pages with long rmap chains (both > anon and file) out onto the non-reclaim list, for those a slow > background scan does make sense. I suspect we won't be needing that code. The S

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-19 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 08:45 -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100 > Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > > Rework of a patch by Nick Piggin -- part 1 of 2. > > > > > > This patch: > > > > > > 1) de

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-19 Thread Rik van Riel
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:56:48 +1100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 19 December 2007 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > Rework of a patch by Nick Piggin -- part 1 of 2. > > > > This patch: > > > > 1) defines the [CONFIG_]NORECLAIM_MLOCK sub-option and the > >stub version of

Re: [patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-18 Thread Nick Piggin
On Wednesday 19 December 2007 08:15, Rik van Riel wrote: > Rework of a patch by Nick Piggin -- part 1 of 2. > > This patch: > > 1) defines the [CONFIG_]NORECLAIM_MLOCK sub-option and the >stub version of the mlock/noreclaim APIs when it's >not configured. Depends on [CONFIG_]NORECLAIM. >

[patch 17/20] non-reclaimable mlocked pages

2007-12-18 Thread Rik van Riel
V2 -> V3: + rebase to 23-mm1 atop RvR's split lru series + fix page flags macros for *PageMlocked() when not configured. + ensure lru_add_drain_all() runs on all cpus when NORECLIM_MLOCK configured. Was just for NUMA. V1 -> V2: + moved this patch [and related patches] up to right after ramdis