[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOUHufa50Mj6wusKvFX2cCAk58oTwCLDC8im+_B6OS_dP6=TJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 17:51:39 -0600
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Michael Larabel <Michael@...haellarabel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Kernel Page Reclaim v2 <page-reclaim@...gle.com>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>, Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>,
Jan Alexander Steffens <heftig@...hlinux.org>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
Steven Barrett <steven@...uorix.net>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Daniel Byrne <djbyrne@....edu>,
Donald Carr <d@...os-reins.com>,
Holger Hoffstätte <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>,
Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel@...dex.ru>,
Shuang Zhai <szhai2@...rochester.edu>,
Sofia Trinh <sofia.trinh@....works>,
Vaibhav Jain <vaibhav@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/14] mm: multi-gen LRU: minimal implementation
On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 4:14 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > +static void inc_max_seq(struct lruvec *lruvec, unsigned long max_seq)
> > +{
> > + int prev, next;
> > + int type, zone;
> > + struct lru_gen_struct *lrugen = &lruvec->lrugen;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> > +
> > + VM_BUG_ON(!seq_is_valid(lruvec));
> > +
> > + if (max_seq != lrugen->max_seq)
> > + goto unlock;
> > +
> > + inc_min_seq(lruvec);
> > +
> > + /* update the active/inactive LRU sizes for compatibility */
> > + prev = lru_gen_from_seq(lrugen->max_seq - 1);
> > + next = lru_gen_from_seq(lrugen->max_seq + 1);
> > +
> > + for (type = 0; type < ANON_AND_FILE; type++) {
> > + for (zone = 0; zone < MAX_NR_ZONES; zone++) {
> > + enum lru_list lru = type * LRU_INACTIVE_FILE;
> > + long delta = lrugen->nr_pages[prev][type][zone] -
> > + lrugen->nr_pages[next][type][zone];
>
> this is confusing to me. does lrugen->nr_pages[next][type][zone] have a
> chance to be none-zero even before max_seq is increased? some pages
> can be in the next generation before the generation is born?
Yes.
> isn't it a bug if(lrugen->nr_pages[next][type][zone] > 0)? shouldn't it be?
>
> delta = lrugen->nr_pages[prev][type][zone];
No. The gen counter in page flags can be updated locklessly
(lru_lock). Later a batched update of nr_pages[] will account for the
change made. If the gen counter is updated to a stale max_seq, and
this stale max_seq is less than min_seq, then this page will be in a
generation yet to be born. Extremely unlikely, but still possible.
This is not a bug because pages might be misplaced but they won't be
lost. IOW, nr_pages[] is always balanced across all *possible*
generations. For the same reason, reset_batch_size() and
drain_evictable() use for_each_gen_type_zone() to go through all
possible generations rather than only those between[max_seq, min_seq].
I'll add a comment here. Sounds good?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists