On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 22:33 +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
quoted text
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 03:55:41PM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 15:58 -0400, Ashif Harji wrote:
> > > This patch unconditionally calls mark_page_accessed to prevent pages, 
> > > especially for small files, from being evicted from the page cache despite 
> > > frequent access.
> > 
> > I guess the downside to this is if a reader is reading a large file, or
> > several files, sequentially with a small read size (smaller than
> > PAGE_SIZE), the pages will be marked active after just one read pass.
> > My gut says the benefits of this patch outweigh the cost.  I would
> > expect real-world backup apps, etc. to read at least PAGE_SIZE.
> 
> I also think that the patch is somewhat problematic, since the original
> intention seems to have been a reduction of the number of (expensive?)
> mark_page_accessed() calls,

mark_page_accessed() isn't expensive.  If called repeatedly, starting
with the third call, it will check two page flags and return.  The only
real expense is that the page appears busier than it may be and will be
retained in memory longer than it should.

quoted text
> but this of course falls flat on its face in case
> of permanent single-page accesses or accesses with progressing but very small
> read size (single-byte reads or so), since the cached page content will expire
> eventually due to lack of mark_page_accessed() updates; thus this patch
> decided to call mark_page_accessed() unconditionally which may be a large
> performance penalty for subsequent tiny-sized reads.

Any application doing many tiny-sized reads isn't exactly asking for
great performance.

quoted text
> I've been thinking hard how to avoid the mark_page_accessed() starvation in
> case of a fixed, (almost) non-changing access state, but this seems hard since
> it'd seem we need some kind of state management here to figure out good
> intervals of when to call mark_page_accessed() *again* for this page. E.g.
> despite non-changing access patterns you could still call mark_page_accessed()
> every 32 calls or so to avoid expiry, but this would need extra helper
> variables.
> 
> A rather ugly way to do it may be to abuse ra.cache_hit or ra.mmap_hit content
> with a
> 	if ((prev_index != index) || (ra.cache_hit % 32 == 0))
> 		mark_page_accessed(page);
> This assumes that ra.cache_hit gets incremented for every access (haven't
> checked whether this is the case).
> That way (combined with an enhanced comment properly explaining the dilemma)
> you would avoid most mark_page_accessed() invocations of subsequent same-page reads
> but still do page status updates from time to time to avoid page deprecation.
> 
> Does anyone think this would be acceptable? Any better idea?

I wouldn't go looking for anything more complicated than Ashif's patch,
unless testing shows it to be harmful in some realistic workload.

quoted text
> Andreas Mohr
> 
> P.S.: since I'm not too familiar with this area I could be rather wrong after all...

I could be missing something as well.  :-)

Shaggy
-- 
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/