[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <42cf3f2e-99eb-409e-8719-cff4afe0906a@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 10:38:09 +0530
From: Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Cc: Kinsey Ho <kinseyho@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v3 0/4] mm/mglru: Kconfig cleanup
On 12/20/23 20:46, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 6:45 AM Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/20/23 09:46, Yu Zhao wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 9:01 PM Kinsey Ho <kinseyho@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>> This series is the result of the following discussion:
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/47066176-bd93-55dd-c2fa-002299d9e034@linux.ibm.com/
>>>>
>>>> It mainly avoids building the code that walks page tables on CPUs that
>>>> use it, i.e., those don't support hardware accessed bit. Specifically,
>>>> it introduces a new Kconfig to guard some of functions added by
>>>> commit bd74fdaea146 ("mm: multi-gen LRU: support page table walks")
>>>> on CPUs like POWER9, on which the series was tested.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kinsey Ho (4):
>>>> mm/mglru: add CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_HW_PTE_YOUNG
>>>> mm/mglru: add CONFIG_LRU_GEN_WALKS_MMU
>>>> mm/mglru: remove CONFIG_MEMCG
>>>> mm/mglru: remove CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
>>>>
>>>> arch/Kconfig | 8 +
>>>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 1 +
>>>> arch/x86/Kconfig | 1 +
>>>> arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h | 6 -
>>>> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 2 +-
>>>> include/linux/mm_types.h | 16 +-
>>>> include/linux/mmzone.h | 28 +---
>>>> include/linux/pgtable.h | 2 +-
>>>> kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
>>>> mm/Kconfig | 4 +
>>>> mm/vmscan.c | 271 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>> 11 files changed, 174 insertions(+), 167 deletions(-)
>>> +Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> who is also working on this.
>>>
>>> Donet, could try this latest version instead? If it works well as the
>>> old one you've been using, can you please provide your Tested-by tag?
>>> Thanks.
>> Hi Yu Zhao,
>>
>> This patch set looks promising.
>>
>> I have conducted tests on PowerPC and x86.
>>
>> In old patch set there is a cleanup patch which removes
>> struct scan_control *sc argument from try_to_inc_max_seq() and
>> run_aging(), Do we need to include that patch?
> Sorry not for including that patch in this series.
>
> It's the first patch in the next cleanup series, which we haven't
> fully tested yet. It'll be the first order of business after the
> holiday season (mid Jan), does the schedule work for you?
>
Yes. No Problem.
Thank you very much.
Donet Tom
>> =>Here are some test results from PowerPC.
>>
>> # ls -l vmscan.o
>> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 3600080 Dec 19 22:35 vmscan.o
>>
>> # size vmscan.o
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>> 95086 27412 0 122498 1de82 vmscan.o
>>
>> # ./scripts/bloat-o-meter vmscan.o.old vmscan.o
>> add/remove: 4/8 grow/shrink: 7/9 up/down: 860/-2524 (-1664)
>> Function old new delta
>> should_abort_scan - 472 +472
>> inc_max_seq.isra 1472 1612 +140
>> shrink_one 680 760 +80
>> lru_gen_release_memcg 508 556 +48
>> lru_gen_init_pgdat 92 132 +40
>> shrink_node 4040 4064 +24
>> lru_gen_online_memcg 680 696 +16
>> lru_gen_change_state 3968 3984 +16
>> ------
>> shrink_lruvec 2168 2152 -16
>> lru_gen_seq_write 1980 1964 -16
>> isolate_folios 6904 6888 -16
>> lru_gen_init_memcg 32 12 -20
>> mm_list 24 - -24
>> lru_gen_exit_memcg 388 344 -44
>> try_to_shrink_lruvec 904 816 -88
>> lru_gen_rotate_memcg 832 700 -132
>> lru_gen_migrate_mm 132 - -132
>> lru_gen_seq_show 1484 1308 -176
>> iterate_mm_list_nowalk 288 - -288
>> lru_gen_look_around 2284 1984 -300
>> lru_gen_add_mm 528 - -528
>> lru_gen_del_mm 720 - -720
>> Total: Before=116213, After=114549, chg -1.43%
>>
>> =>Here are some test results from x86.
>>
>> $ ls -l vmscan.o
>> -rw-r--r--. 1 donettom donettom 2545792 Dec 20 15:16 vmscan.o
>>
>> $ size vmscan.o
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>> 109751 32189 0 141940 22a74 vmscan.o
>> $
>>
>> $ ./scripts/bloat-o-meter vmscan.o.old vmscan.o
>> add/remove: 7/3 grow/shrink: 14/4 up/down: 2307/-1534 (773)
>> Function old new delta
>> inc_max_seq - 1470 +1470
>> should_abort_scan - 229 +229
>> isolate_folios 4469 4562 +93
>> lru_gen_rotate_memcg 641 731 +90
>> lru_gen_init_memcg 41 99 +58
>> lru_gen_release_memcg 282 336 +54
>> lru_gen_exit_memcg 306 350 +44
>> walk_pud_range 2502 2543 +41
>> shrink_node 2912 2951 +39
>> lru_gen_online_memcg 402 434 +32
>> lru_gen_seq_show 1112 1140 +28
>> lru_gen_add_folio 740 757 +17
>> lru_gen_look_around 1217 1233 +16
>> __pfx_should_abort_scan - 16 +16
>> __pfx_inc_max_seq - 16 +16
>> iterate_mm_list_nowalk 277 292 +15
>> shrink_one 413 426 +13
>> lru_gen_init_lruvec 190 202 +12
>> -----
>> try_to_shrink_lruvec 717 643 -74
>> lru_gen_init_pgdat 196 82 -114
>> try_to_inc_max_seq.isra 2897 1578 -1319
>> Total: Before=101095, After=101868, chg +0.76%
>> $
>>
>>
>> Tested-by: Donet Tom <donettom@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Thanks!
>
> Acked-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists