[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200630213009.GB40675@xz-x1>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:30:09 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/26] mm: Do page fault accounting in handle_mm_fault
Hi, David,
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 02:05:24PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020, Peter Xu wrote:
>
> > @@ -4408,6 +4440,34 @@ vm_fault_t handle_mm_fault(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> > mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize(false);
> > }
> >
> > + if (ret & (VM_FAULT_RETRY | VM_FAULT_ERROR))
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Do accounting in the common code, to avoid unnecessary
> > + * architecture differences or duplicated code.
> > + *
> > + * We arbitrarily make the rules be:
> > + *
> > + * - Unsuccessful faults do not count (e.g. when the address wasn't
> > + * valid). That includes arch_vma_access_permitted() failing above.
> > + *
> > + * So this is expressly not a "this many hardware page faults"
> > + * counter. Use the hw profiling for that.
> > + *
> > + * - Incomplete faults do not count (e.g. RETRY). They will only
> > + * count once completed.
> > + *
> > + * - The fault counts as a "major" fault when the final successful
> > + * fault is VM_FAULT_MAJOR, or if it was a retry (which implies that
> > + * we couldn't handle it immediately previously).
> > + *
> > + * - If the fault is done for GUP, regs will be NULL and no accounting
> > + * will be done.
> > + */
> > + mm_account_fault(regs, address, (ret & VM_FAULT_MAJOR) ||
> > + (flags & FAULT_FLAG_TRIED));
> > +
> > return ret;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(handle_mm_fault);
>
> Just a nit, likely not important: I wonder if it would be cleaner to pass
> the vm_fault_t into mm_account_fault() and then do the VM_FAULT_RETRY and
> VM_FAULT_ERROR checks there as well as putting the comment about how
> accounting is handled in that function. Your comment is great.
Yes that seems to be cleaner so handle_mm_fault is shorter (btw, I "stole" the
comment block majorly from Linus :).
But this change will also need to touch patch 25 again or it won't apply
cleanly. So I think I'll see whether Andrew would like me to repost the whole
series then I'll adopt the change when I repost, or another alternative is
maybe we can also do that on top, depending on whether there's further
comments..
Thanks!
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists