On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 03:14:38PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >What you are proposing is to allow lockless read operations right? No
> >lockless write? The concurrency issue that we currently have is multiple
> >processes faulting in pages in different ranges from the same file. I
> >think this is a rather typical usage scenario. Faulting in a page from a
> >file for reading requires a write operation on the radix tree. The
> >approach with a lockless read path does not help us. This proposed scheme
> >would only help if pages are already faulted in and another process starts
> >using the same pages as an earlier process.
> >
>
> Yep, lockless reads only to start with. I think you'll see some benefit
> because the read(2) and ->nopage paths also take read-side locks, so your
> write side will no longer have to contend with them.
>
> It won't be a huge improvement in scalability though, maybe just a constant
> factor.
>
> >Would it not be better to handle the radix tree in the same way as a page
> >table? Have a lock at the lowest layer so that different sections of the
> >radix tree can be locked by different processes? That would enable
> >concurrent writes.
> >
>
> Yeah this is the next step. Note that it is not the first step because I
> actually want to _speed up_ single threaded lookup paths, rather than
> slowing them down, otherwise it will never get accepted.
>
> It also might add quite a large amount of complexity to the radix tree, so
> it may no longer be suitable for a generic data structure anymore (depends
> how it is implemented). But the write side should be easier than the
> read-side so I don't think there is too much to worry about. I already have
> some bits and pieces to make it fine-grained.
Maybe we can try another way to reduce the concurrent radix tree
writers problem: coordinating and serializing writers at high level.
Since kswapd is the major radix tree deleter, and readahead is the
major radix tree inserter, putting parts of them together in a loop
might reduce the contention noticeably.
The following pseudo-code shows the basic idea:
(Integrating kprefetchd is also possible. Just for simplicity...:)
PER_NODE(ra_queue);
kswapd()
{
loop {
loop {
free enough pages for top(ra_queue)
}
submit(pop(ra_queue));
wait();
}
}
readahead()
{
assemble one ra_req
if (ra_req immediately needed)
submit(ra_req);
else {
push(ra_queue, ra_req);
wakeup_kswapd();
}
}
This scheme might reduce
- direct page reclaim pressure
- radix tree write lock contention
- lru lock contention
Regards,
Wu
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
