Received: by 2002:a25:c205:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id s5csp355779ybf; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:54:45 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz6J5aTpyIMctigfn8reXAsL40ro9iX289BzSzOGQD4nCKsArGb2Zyekjzn0t7vQNnB1kXr X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:100e:: with SMTP id a14mr2143341otp.297.1582872885733; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:54:45 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1582872885; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=oqO5gbO+00etkcI6MEPi+MEo4yFmirgUGgV54gegVSD36UWeb8hp7hPeSj+2QQTVwn /7GAsdTDTkpnkem2ePnYigh6JUfqpbePWuqkQG5pOxiLv6nTnlimXpPdzNFy88u6+TY4 /W0z0fIL+2OoTCRbxQOW5ZwS13RtaemXMWO5zxIola69W2tbAjqCkoL9VsuJIW7o4bFK jXUNT4nuPIuTfMh6PDwZ7qy0/a5kWX+2+vN6P6DaxHTNliaIHNAwzk5OCocSIEZBNzJM riXbvLyEF3+9ktJJT/hm/pO7eJxWj64Z7jPE+hyiZs9QDJkN5jm/lv4zOW5x/bSzxKHZ PhsQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=8jcqmZWRuzpY+irIgL2xLgBa8KgqT66J5i07241XqA0=; b=kTmfyzjJTbgK9sB7tBhnpeI81ui4AhpO6zJAmliebisIYBUZA1NauWiKrqCx1wOGGp ZtMWyzxVjZRxfN9vfJA0dI2SkPu5owtkbf2qhtxy3ZrM2mc/MZRgftwB3LM+C9X9tpfr IsgVarAj77IlQDHwV/Ek2SdJIJIG/BUae9sF24E+MkPIab6tDyrABp7jydIyzN740x1p XLbI3LCFt7hY8f5r7uMMpF72TbgneN0FeSq0FP1+qeFVlF2uHk3i06BL1bQbtrYCpCYv hQbvsFj4PZlWhITAcEnsw+vMTXhHv07Wlh5d6B8/pSM8TMGfzN1qCCW11TQ3bNx6ERU5 5jeQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=LhKQSXHn; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t24si1076008oth.319.2020.02.27.22.54.33; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:54:45 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=LhKQSXHn; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726583AbgB1GxH (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 28 Feb 2020 01:53:07 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f193.google.com ([209.85.210.193]:39205 "EHLO mail-pf1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725870AbgB1GxH (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Feb 2020 01:53:07 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f193.google.com with SMTP id l7so1225343pff.6 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:53:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=8jcqmZWRuzpY+irIgL2xLgBa8KgqT66J5i07241XqA0=; b=LhKQSXHnNWOgbv3WUG1Q+LWA6Bvl74g6d/7JfQDofL2rVfpY9oWb+uCJ8l7L3SwmSH oaFoK5hORHEaNN1nWVtl9MR2hbyjh8YUrHDuGpC/7uU8Ojc2PaeuwOp2p8Y4ozAxvWLh xOQx2ncZkgSzpKzmK4tP/hoD3U0f7XM7lGSAeGhzHeh7crMQo9lpDo5ZNLru5a9Q+Srd Zsbd7NXfMxZdmxVU7x7NcDMSM8sKf1IXQnIQTFOn6yxtRVAMt6Vx+5UiU/QGaOJ1lJRl 97Jm83mYUxenTTcpiB75oy6nlX45oagdNE6fhUaeP00Jt8Jtp04uuM/cTp2FV5vQbfQZ kuJw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=8jcqmZWRuzpY+irIgL2xLgBa8KgqT66J5i07241XqA0=; b=WrClrsrAlGqgVptVa2Hn83cxut0Qa0JfrrSdp7JO4UuEKFSBLYM00TABlaaOy0CA4z JtesZZg1sqRKiVhpf0QzF7JOgtnM4Ymoos924734x5Ycb3990WJk95iZmHGE8Oo0v+5h 7OuhqBavXnStsuwgRf+YCol6eA+ZTZ0TOBolB9Mf87HCpC+fiID7mQF52EiDvNpMzqUs PTc7Sh7gPTrYWOpWgiyHmWrbCy7gJ6kAoM44p6AcLuTvk6oUu/P40hWTiWEox87vSH1p w+mVXS8ktNgDZuKWD5bVD3UBw4c32Aarih7R77DfaUvgwebV5iQrSvQipfjjuWhFXip+ c8Mg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV5lyJ+IYdR3FTpdsnRuniVG0HXShsQu6VOopNHCs041Xw0+ZkD kICEQFTNEaTkKJnRii3X3ts= X-Received: by 2002:a63:7e09:: with SMTP id z9mr3121039pgc.383.1582872786530; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:53:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from js1304-desktop ([114.206.198.176]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b3sm9829932pft.73.2020.02.27.22.53.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 27 Feb 2020 22:53:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:52:59 +0900 From: Joonsoo Kim To: Aaron Lu Cc: Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , Hugh Dickins , Minchan Kim , Vlastimil Babka , Mel Gorman , kernel-team@lge.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] workingset protection/detection on the anonymous LRU list Message-ID: <20200228065214.GA17349@js1304-desktop> References: <1582175513-22601-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <20200226193942.30049da9c090b466bdc5ec23@linux-foundation.org> <20200227134806.GC39625@cmpxchg.org> <20200228032358.GB634650@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain> <20200228040214.GA21040@js1304-desktop> <20200228055726.GA674737@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200228055726.GA674737@ziqianlu-desktop.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 01:57:26PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 01:03:03PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:23:58AM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 08:48:06AM -0500, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 07:39:42PM -0800, Andrew Morton 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 > > > > > > test: swap-w-rand-mt, which is a multi thread swap write intensive > > > workload so there will be swap out and swap ins. > > > > > > > first two patches allow the VM to usher those pages in and out of > > > > > > Weird part is, the robot says the performance gain comes from the 1st > > > patch only, which adjust the ratio, not including the 2nd patch which > > > makes anon page starting from inactive list. > > > > > > I find the performance gain hard to explain... > > > > Let me explain the reason of the performance gain. > > > > 1st patch provides more second chance to the anonymous pages. > > By second chance, do I understand correctely this refers to pages on > inactive list get moved back to active list? Yes. > > > In swap-w-rand-mt test, memory used by all threads is greater than the > > amount of the system memory, but, memory used by each thread would > > not be much. So, although it is a rand test, there is a locality > > in each thread's job. More second chance helps to exploit this > > locality so performance could be improved. > > Does this mean there should be fewer vmstat.pswpout and vmstat.pswpin > with patch1 compared to vanilla? It depends on the workload. If the workload consists of anonymous pages only, I think, yes, pswpout/pswpin would be lower than vanilla with patch #1. With large inactive list, we can easily find the frequently referenced page and it would result in less swap in/out. Thanks.