Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 09:01:52 -0800
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@codeaurora.org>,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Laura Abbott <lauraa@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] fs/buffer.c: Revoke LRU when trying to drop buffers
Message-ID: <YBGcgGLcXhvLl9+/@google.com>
References: <cover.1611642038.git.cgoldswo@codeaurora.org>
 <e8f3e042b902156467a5e978b57c14954213ec59.1611642039.git.cgoldswo@codeaurora.org>
 <YBCexclveGV2KH1G@google.com>
 <20210127025922.GS308988@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210127025922.GS308988@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 02:59:22AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 02:59:17PM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > The release buffer_head in LRU is great improvement for migration
> > point of view.
> > 
> > A question: 
> > 
> > Can't we invalidate(e.g., invalidate_bh_lrus) bh_lru in migrate_prep or
> > elsewhere when migration found the failure and is about to retry?
> > 
> > Migration has done such a way for other per-cpu stuffs for a long time,
> > which would be more consistent with others and might be faster sometimes
> > with reducing IPI calls for page.
> 
> Should lru_add_drain_all() also handle draining the buffer lru for all
> callers?  A quick survey ...
> 
> invalidate_bdev() already calls invalidate_bh_lrus()
> compact_nodes() would probably benefit from the BH LRU being invalidated
> POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED would benefit if the underlying filesystem uses BHs
> check_and_migrate_cma_pages() would benefit
> khugepaged_do_scan() doesn't need it today
> scan_get_next_rmap_item() looks like it only works on anon pages (?) so
> 	doesn't need it
> mem_cgroup_force_empty() probably needs it
> mem_cgroup_move_charge() ditto
> memfd_wait_for_pins() doesn't need it
> shake_page() might benefit
> offline_pages() would benefit
> alloc_contig_range() would benefit
> 
> Seems like most would benefit and a few won't care.  I think I'd lean
> towards having lru_add_drain_all() call invalidate_bh_lrus(), just to
> simplify things.

Fair enough.