Re: [PATCH *] new VM patch for 2.4.0-test8
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, James Lewis Nance wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 10:09:57PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > today I released a new VM patch with 4 small improvements: > > Are these 4 improvements in the code test9-pre1 patch that Linus > just released? No. But I have a patch (that I will mail to the list once I've tested it a bit more). regards, Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000 http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH *] new VM patch for 2.4.0-test8
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, James Lewis Nance wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 10:09:57PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > today I released a new VM patch with 4 small improvements:
>
> Are these 4 improvements in the code test9-pre1 patch that Linus
> just released?
Oh well, I may as well give it now ;)
The patch below upgrades 2.4.0-test9-pre1 VM to a
VM with the 4 changes...
They /should/ be stable, but I'd really appreciate
a bit more testing before I give the patch to Linus.
(I know the VM patch included in 2.4.0-test9-pre1 is
stable, that one got a heavier testing than any VM patch
I ever made. I was testing the system so heavily that I
had to upgrade my 8139too driver and other things to keep
the system from crashing ;))
regards,
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
--- linux-2.4.8-test9-pre1/fs/buffer.c.orig Fri Sep 15 23:23:09 2000
+++ linux-2.4.8-test9-pre1/fs/buffer.c Fri Sep 15 23:26:24 2000
@@ -705,7 +705,6 @@
static void refill_freelist(int size)
{
if (!grow_buffers(size)) {
- //wakeup_bdflush(1);
balance_dirty(NODEV);
wakeup_kswapd(1);
}
@@ -863,15 +862,14 @@
dirty = size_buffers_type[BUF_DIRTY] >> PAGE_SHIFT;
tot = nr_free_buffer_pages();
-// tot -= size_buffers_type[BUF_PROTECTED] >> PAGE_SHIFT;
dirty *= 200;
soft_dirty_limit = tot * bdf_prm.b_un.nfract;
hard_dirty_limit = soft_dirty_limit * 2;
/* First, check for the "real" dirty limit. */
- if (dirty > soft_dirty_limit || inactive_shortage()) {
- if (dirty > hard_dirty_limit)
+ if (dirty > soft_dirty_limit) {
+ if (dirty > hard_dirty_limit || inactive_shortage())
return 1;
return 0;
}
@@ -2279,7 +2277,9 @@
{
struct buffer_head * tmp, * bh = page->buffers;
int index = BUFSIZE_INDEX(bh->b_size);
+ int loop = 0;
+cleaned_buffers_try_again:
spin_lock(_list_lock);
write_lock(_table_lock);
spin_lock(_list[index].lock);
@@ -2325,8 +2325,14 @@
spin_unlock(_list[index].lock);
write_unlock(_table_lock);
spin_unlock(_list_lock);
- if (wait)
+ if (wait) {
sync_page_buffers(bh, wait);
+ /* We waited synchronously, so we can free the buffers. */
+ if (wait > 1 && !loop) {
+ loop = 1;
+ goto cleaned_buffers_try_again;
+ }
+ }
return 0;
}
--- linux-2.4.8-test9-pre1/mm/swap.c.orig Fri Sep 15 23:23:11 2000
+++ linux-2.4.8-test9-pre1/mm/swap.cFri Sep 15 23:24:23 2000
@@ -161,14 +161,19 @@
* Don't touch it if it's not on the active list.
* (some pages aren't on any list at all)
*/
- if (PageActive(page) && (page_count(page) == 1 || page->buffers) &&
+ if (PageActive(page) && (page_count(page) <= 2 || page->buffers) &&
!page_ramdisk(page)) {
/*
* We can move the page to the inactive_dirty list
* if we know there is backing store available.
+*
+* We also move pages here that we cannot free yet,
+* but may be able to free later - because most likely
+* we're holding an extra reference on the page which
+* will be dropped right after deactivate_page().
*/
- if (page->buffers) {
+ if (page->buffers || page_count(page) == 2) {
del_page_from_active_list(page);
add_page_to_inactive_dirty_list(page);
/*
@@ -181,8 +186,7 @@
add_page_to_inactive_clean_list(page);
}
/*
-* ELSE: no backing store available, leave it on
-* the active list.
+* OK, we cannot free the page. Leave it alone.
*/
}
}
--- linux-2.4.8-test9-pre1/mm/vmscan.c.orig Fri Sep 15 23:23:11 2000
+++ linux-2.4.8-test9-pre1/mm/vmscan.c Fri Sep 15 23:32:10 2000
@@ -103,8 +103,8 @@
UnlockPage(page);
vma->vm_mm->rss--;
flush_tlb_page(vma, address);
- page_cache_release(page);
deactivate_page(page);
+ page_cache_release(page);
goto out_failed;
}
@@ -681,19 +681,26 @@
if (freed_page && !free_shortage())
break;
continue;
+ } else if (page->mapping && !PageDirty(page)) {
+ /*
+* If a page had an extra reference in
+* deactivate_page(), we will
Re: [PATCH *] new VM patch for 2.4.0-test8
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 10:09:57PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: > Hi, > > today I released a new VM patch with 4 small improvements: Are these 4 improvements in the code test9-pre1 patch that Linus just released? Jim - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH *] new VM patch for 2.4.0-test8
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 10:09:57PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote: Hi, today I released a new VM patch with 4 small improvements: Are these 4 improvements in the code test9-pre1 patch that Linus just released? Jim - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH *] new VM patch for 2.4.0-test8
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, James Lewis Nance wrote:
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 10:09:57PM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
Hi,
today I released a new VM patch with 4 small improvements:
Are these 4 improvements in the code test9-pre1 patch that Linus
just released?
Oh well, I may as well give it now ;)
The patch below upgrades 2.4.0-test9-pre1 VM to a
VM with the 4 changes...
They /should/ be stable, but I'd really appreciate
a bit more testing before I give the patch to Linus.
(I know the VM patch included in 2.4.0-test9-pre1 is
stable, that one got a heavier testing than any VM patch
I ever made. I was testing the system so heavily that I
had to upgrade my 8139too driver and other things to keep
the system from crashing ;))
regards,
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
--- linux-2.4.8-test9-pre1/fs/buffer.c.orig Fri Sep 15 23:23:09 2000
+++ linux-2.4.8-test9-pre1/fs/buffer.c Fri Sep 15 23:26:24 2000
@@ -705,7 +705,6 @@
static void refill_freelist(int size)
{
if (!grow_buffers(size)) {
- //wakeup_bdflush(1);
balance_dirty(NODEV);
wakeup_kswapd(1);
}
@@ -863,15 +862,14 @@
dirty = size_buffers_type[BUF_DIRTY] PAGE_SHIFT;
tot = nr_free_buffer_pages();
-// tot -= size_buffers_type[BUF_PROTECTED] PAGE_SHIFT;
dirty *= 200;
soft_dirty_limit = tot * bdf_prm.b_un.nfract;
hard_dirty_limit = soft_dirty_limit * 2;
/* First, check for the "real" dirty limit. */
- if (dirty soft_dirty_limit || inactive_shortage()) {
- if (dirty hard_dirty_limit)
+ if (dirty soft_dirty_limit) {
+ if (dirty hard_dirty_limit || inactive_shortage())
return 1;
return 0;
}
@@ -2279,7 +2277,9 @@
{
struct buffer_head * tmp, * bh = page-buffers;
int index = BUFSIZE_INDEX(bh-b_size);
+ int loop = 0;
+cleaned_buffers_try_again:
spin_lock(lru_list_lock);
write_lock(hash_table_lock);
spin_lock(free_list[index].lock);
@@ -2325,8 +2325,14 @@
spin_unlock(free_list[index].lock);
write_unlock(hash_table_lock);
spin_unlock(lru_list_lock);
- if (wait)
+ if (wait) {
sync_page_buffers(bh, wait);
+ /* We waited synchronously, so we can free the buffers. */
+ if (wait 1 !loop) {
+ loop = 1;
+ goto cleaned_buffers_try_again;
+ }
+ }
return 0;
}
--- linux-2.4.8-test9-pre1/mm/swap.c.orig Fri Sep 15 23:23:11 2000
+++ linux-2.4.8-test9-pre1/mm/swap.cFri Sep 15 23:24:23 2000
@@ -161,14 +161,19 @@
* Don't touch it if it's not on the active list.
* (some pages aren't on any list at all)
*/
- if (PageActive(page) (page_count(page) == 1 || page-buffers)
+ if (PageActive(page) (page_count(page) = 2 || page-buffers)
!page_ramdisk(page)) {
/*
* We can move the page to the inactive_dirty list
* if we know there is backing store available.
+*
+* We also move pages here that we cannot free yet,
+* but may be able to free later - because most likely
+* we're holding an extra reference on the page which
+* will be dropped right after deactivate_page().
*/
- if (page-buffers) {
+ if (page-buffers || page_count(page) == 2) {
del_page_from_active_list(page);
add_page_to_inactive_dirty_list(page);
/*
@@ -181,8 +186,7 @@
add_page_to_inactive_clean_list(page);
}
/*
-* ELSE: no backing store available, leave it on
-* the active list.
+* OK, we cannot free the page. Leave it alone.
*/
}
}
--- linux-2.4.8-test9-pre1/mm/vmscan.c.orig Fri Sep 15 23:23:11 2000
+++ linux-2.4.8-test9-pre1/mm/vmscan.c Fri Sep 15 23:32:10 2000
@@ -103,8 +103,8 @@
UnlockPage(page);
vma-vm_mm-rss--;
flush_tlb_page(vma, address);
- page_cache_release(page);
deactivate_page(page);
+ page_cache_release(page);
goto out_failed;
}
@@ -681,19 +681,26 @@
if (freed_page !free_shortage())
break;
continue;
+ } else if (page-mapping !PageDirty(page)) {
+ /*
+* If a page had an extra reference in
+* deactivate_page(), we will find it here.
+
