[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875xwr81x9.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 14:50:42 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Yuanchu Xie <yuanchu@...gle.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V"
<aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>, Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@...cle.com>,
Henry Huang <henry.hj@...group.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>, Dan
Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Gregory Price
<gregory.price@...verge.com>, Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>, David
Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner
<hannes@...xchg.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, Roman Gushchin
<roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Shuah
Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, Matthew
Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Sudarshan Rajagopalan
<quic_sudaraja@...cinc.com>, Kairui Song <kasong@...cent.com>, "Michael
S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@...ux.dev>,
Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>, Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, Qi
Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>, Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>,
"Vishal Moola (Oracle)" <vishal.moola@...il.com>, Kefeng Wang
<wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/8] mm: multi-gen LRU: ignore non-leaf pmd_young
for force_scan=true
Yuanchu Xie <yuanchu@...gle.com> writes:
> When non-leaf pmd accessed bits are available, MGLRU page table walks
> can clear the accessed bit and promptly ignore the accessed bit on the
> pte because it's on a different node, so the walk does not update the
> generation of said page. When the next scan comes around on the right
> node, the non-leaf pmd accessed bit might remain cleared and the pte
> accessed bits won't be checked. While this is sufficient for
> reclaim-driven aging, where the goal is to select a reasonably cold
> page, the access can be missed when aging proactively for measuring the
> working set size of a node/memcg.
>
> Since force_scan disables various other optimizations, we check
> force_scan to ignore the non-leaf pmd accessed bit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yuanchu Xie <yuanchu@...gle.com>
> ---
> mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index 4f9c854ce6cc..1a7c7d537db6 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -3522,7 +3522,7 @@ static void walk_pmd_range(pud_t *pud, unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
>
> walk->mm_stats[MM_NONLEAF_TOTAL]++;
>
> - if (should_clear_pmd_young()) {
> + if (!walk->force_scan && should_clear_pmd_young()) {
> if (!pmd_young(val))
> continue;
Sorry, I don't understand why we need this. If !pmd_young(val), we
don't need to update the generation. If pmd_young(val), the bloom
filter will be ignored if force_scan == true. Or do I miss something?
--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists