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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210413075155.32652-1-sjpark@amazon.de> <3ddd4f8a-8e51-662b-df11-a63a0e75b2bc@kernel.dk>
 <20210413231436.GF63242@dread.disaster.area> <f4750f9431bd12b7338a47925de8b17015da51a7.camel@surriel.com>
 <CAOUHufafMcaG8sOS=1YMy2P_6p0R1FzP16bCwpUau7g1-PybBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210414155130.GU3762101@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <e0ad1b48a1ad0b6d3a1e79129f397ddb6c32fe35.camel@surriel.com>
 <CAOUHufaRXbDHbEro1uE1CHvpWB4U67iroj0hT8CkUEOSAddzYQ@mail.gmail.com> <db2f6f81d30945eb296c4dcc9824b1ad353cc777.camel@surriel.com>
In-Reply-To: <db2f6f81d30945eb296c4dcc9824b1ad353cc777.camel@surriel.com>
From:   Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 14:08:20 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOUHufY_hHs_dW-5PCGgw5-vnx4jERAmMF7_EoGYFTH-gthy2g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/16] Multigenerational LRU Framework
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        SeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Benjamin Manes <ben.manes@gmail.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        Michael Larabel <michael@michaellarabel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Michel Lespinasse <michel@lespinasse.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@intel.com>,
        SeongJae Park <sjpark@amazon.de>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, lkp@lists.01.org,
        Kernel Page Reclaim v2 <page-reclaim@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:42 PM Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 13:14 -0600, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:59 AM Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 08:51 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > >    2) It will not scan PTE tables under non-leaf PMD entries
> > > > > that
> > > > > do not
> > > > >       have the accessed bit set, when
> > > > >       CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PARENT_PMD_YOUNG=y.
> > > >
> > > > This assumes  that workloads have reasonable locality. Could
> > > > there
> > > > be a worst case where only one or two pages in each PTE are used,
> > > > so this PTE skipping trick doesn't work?
> > >
> > > Databases with large shared memory segments shared between
> > > many processes come to mind as a real-world example of a
> > > worst case scenario.
> >
> > Well, I don't think you two are talking about the same thing. Andi
> > was
> > focusing on sparsity. Your example seems to be about sharing, i.e.,
> > ihgh mapcount. Of course both can happen at the same time, as I
> > tested
> > here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/YHFuL%2FDdtiml4biw@google.com/#t
> >
> > I'm skeptical that shared memory used by databases is that sparse,
> > i.e., one page per PTE table, because the extremely low locality
> > would
> > heavily penalize their performance. But my knowledge in databases is
> > close to zero. So feel free to enlighten me or just ignore what I
> > said.
>
> A database may have a 200GB shared memory segment,
> and a worker task that gets spun up to handle a
> query might access only 1MB of memory to answer
> that query.
>
> That memory could be from anywhere inside the
> shared memory segment. Maybe some of the accesses
> are more dense, and others more sparse, who knows?
>
> A lot of the locality
> will depend on how memory
> space inside the shared memory segment is reclaimed
> and recycled inside the database.

Thanks. Yeah, I guess we'll just need to see more benchmarks from the
database realm. Stay tuned :)