Re: [PATCH] Scalable page cache

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>]

On November 26, 2001 07:16 pm, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:

> First off, if we take a look at why the page cache lock is being contended 
> a few obvious problems pop out immediately:
> 
> 	1. potentially long hash chains are walked with the page cache
> 	   lock held for the entire duration of the operation

Yes, having a not-very-random hash function makes this worse.  What we see 
is: the attempt to improve locality by having the hash function preserve 
certain input bits can easily produce a net loss by causing a big variance in 
hash chain length, increasing the average length of the list walk.  At some 
point I'll go check this theory for the pache cache (in fact I think it's 
already been checked, and a paper written about it).

> 	2. multiple cache lines are touched while holding the page cache 
> 	   lock
> 	3. sequential lookups involve reaquiring the page cache lock
> 	4. the page cache hash is too large, virtually assuring that 
> 	   lookups will cause a cache miss

A more random hash improves (4) too, by allowing a smaller table.

Though somebody may well come up with a better structure than a hash table 
for the page cache, I'm pretty sure we can make the existing approach work a 
little better.

We could divide up the locking using pcache_locks [page_hash >> some_shift].

--
Daniel