[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e84f8c2d-6264-f2a3-3737-17d48a0251f8@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:45:45 +0800
From: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
hughd@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: migrate: record the mlocked page status to remove
unnecessary lru drain
On 10/20/2023 10:30 AM, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
>
>
> On 10/20/2023 10:09 AM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/19/2023 8:07 PM, Yin, Fengwei wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/19/2023 4:51 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/19/2023 4:22 PM, Yin Fengwei wrote:
>>>>> Hi Baolin,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/19/23 15:25, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/19/2023 2:09 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>>>>> Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 18 Oct 2023, at 9:04, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When doing compaction, I found the lru_add_drain() is an obvious hotspot
>>>>>>>>> when migrating pages. The distribution of this hotspot is as follows:
>>>>>>>>> - 18.75% compact_zone
>>>>>>>>> - 17.39% migrate_pages
>>>>>>>>> - 13.79% migrate_pages_batch
>>>>>>>>> - 11.66% migrate_folio_move
>>>>>>>>> - 7.02% lru_add_drain
>>>>>>>>> + 7.02% lru_add_drain_cpu
>>>>>>>>> + 3.00% move_to_new_folio
>>>>>>>>> 1.23% rmap_walk
>>>>>>>>> + 1.92% migrate_folio_unmap
>>>>>>>>> + 3.20% migrate_pages_sync
>>>>>>>>> + 0.90% isolate_migratepages
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The lru_add_drain() was added by commit c3096e6782b7 ("mm/migrate:
>>>>>>>>> __unmap_and_move() push good newpage to LRU") to drain the newpage to LRU
>>>>>>>>> immediately, to help to build up the correct newpage->mlock_count in
>>>>>>>>> remove_migration_ptes() for mlocked pages. However, if there are no mlocked
>>>>>>>>> pages are migrating, then we can avoid this lru drain operation, especailly
>>>>>>>>> for the heavy concurrent scenarios.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lru_add_drain() is also used to drain pages out of folio_batch. Pages in folio_batch
>>>>>>>> have an additional pin to prevent migration. See folio_get(folio); in folio_add_lru().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> lru_add_drain() is called after the page reference count checking in
>>>>>>> move_to_new_folio(). So, I don't this is an issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agree. The purpose of adding lru_add_drain() is to address the 'mlock_count' issue for mlocked pages. Please see commit c3096e6782b7 and related comments. Moreover I haven't seen an increase in the number of page migration failures due to page reference count checking after this patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with your. My understanding also is that the lru_add_drain() is only needed
>>>>> for mlocked folio to correct mlock_count. Like to hear the confirmation from Huge.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But I have question: why do we need use page_was_mlocked instead of check
>>>>> folio_test_mlocked(src)? Does page migration clear the mlock flag? Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, please see the call trace: try_to_migrate_one() ---> page_remove_rmap() ---> munlock_vma_folio().
>>>
>>> Yes. This will clear mlock bit.
>>>
>>> What about set dst folio mlocked if source is before try_to_migrate_one()? And
>>> then check whether dst folio is mlocked after? And need clear mlocked if migration
>>> fails. I suppose the change is minor. Just a thought. Thanks.
>>
>> IMO, this will break the mlock related statistics in mlock_folio() when the remove_migration_pte() rebuilds the mlock status and mlock count.
>>
>> Another concern I can see is that, during the page migration, a concurrent munlock() can be called to clean the VM_LOCKED flags for the VMAs, so the remove_migration_pte() should not rebuild the mlock status and mlock count. But the dst folio's mlcoked status is still remained, which is wrong.
>>
>> So your suggested apporach seems not easy, and I think my patch is simple with re-using existing __migrate_folio_record() and __migrate_folio_extract() :)
>
> Can these concerns be addressed by clear dst mlocked after lru_add_drain() but before
> remove_migration_pte()?
IMHO, that seems too hacky to me. I still prefer to rely on the
migration process of the mlcock pages.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists