Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 15:36:39 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc:     js1304@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>, kernel-team@lge.com,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] workingset protection/detection on the anonymous
 LRU list
Message-Id: <20200227153639.951d6a42080e8d4227872e64@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200227134806.GC39625@cmpxchg.org>
References: <1582175513-22601-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
        <20200226193942.30049da9c090b466bdc5ec23@linux-foundation.org>
        <20200227134806.GC39625@cmpxchg.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 08:48:06 -0500 Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:

> > It sounds like the above simple aging changes provide most of the
> > improvement, and that the workingset changes are less beneficial and a
> > bit more risky/speculative?
> > 
> > If so, would it be best for us to concentrate on the aging changes
> > first, let that settle in and spread out and then turn attention to the
> > workingset changes?
> 
> Those two patches work well for some workloads (like the benchmark),
> but not for others. The full patchset makes sure both types work well.
> 
> Specifically, the existing aging strategy for anon assumes that most
> anon pages allocated are hot. That's why they all start active and we
> then do second-chance with the small inactive LRU to filter out the
> few cold ones to swap out. This is true for many common workloads.
> 
> The benchmark creates a larger-than-memory set of anon pages with a
> flat access profile - to the VM a flood of one-off pages. Joonsoo's
> first two patches allow the VM to usher those pages in and out of
> memory very quickly, which explains the throughput boost. But it comes
> at the cost of reducing space available to hot anon pages, which will
> regress others.
> 
> Joonsoo's full patchset makes the VM support both types of workloads
> well: by putting everything on the inactive list first, one-off pages
> can move through the system without disturbing the hot pages. And by
> supplementing the inactive list with non-resident information, he can
> keep it tiny without the risk of one-off pages drowning out new hot
> pages. He can retain today's level of active page protection and
> detection, while allowing one-off pages to move through quickly.

Helpful, thanks.

At v2 with no evident review input I'd normally take a pass at this
stage.  But given all the potential benefits, perhaps I should be more
aggressive here?