Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220208081902.3550911-1-yuzhao@google.com> <20220208081902.3550911-6-yuzhao@google.com>
 <87bkyy56nv.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> <CAOUHufbekcu09DyEZAkJNRq_1qKaf_xibXQNeAVK=rsGBn9Z4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <87y2213wrl.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <87y2213wrl.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
From:   Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Feb 2022 18:34:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOUHufY8dRimricP=pvvgg8mEagb369nE8MVe6tnnLXQuKyAEA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/12] mm: multigenerational LRU: minimal implementation
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@google.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Michael Larabel <Michael@michaellarabel.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Kernel Page Reclaim v2 <page-reclaim@google.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>,
        Jan Alexander Steffens <heftig@archlinux.org>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name>,
        Steven Barrett <steven@liquorix.net>,
        Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@google.com>,
        Daniel Byrne <djbyrne@mtu.edu>,
        Donald Carr <d@chaos-reins.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Holger_Hoffst=C3=A4tte?= <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>,
        Konstantin Kharlamov <Hi-Angel@yandex.ru>,
        Shuang Zhai <szhai2@cs.rochester.edu>,
        Sofia Trinh <sofia.trinh@edi.works>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 5:59 PM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 1:28 AM Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Yu,
> >>
> >> Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > To avoid confusions, the terms "promotion" and "demotion" will be
> >> > applied to the multigenerational LRU, as a new convention; the terms
> >> > "activation" and "deactivation" will be applied to the active/inactive
> >> > LRU, as usual.
> >>
> >> In the memory tiering related commits and patchset, for example as follows,
> >>
> >> commit 668e4147d8850df32ca41e28f52c146025ca45c6
> >> Author: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
> >> Date:   Thu Sep 2 14:59:19 2021 -0700
> >>
> >>     mm/vmscan: add page demotion counter
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20220221084529.1052339-1-ying.huang@intel.com/
> >>
> >> "demote" and "promote" is used for migrating pages between different
> >> types of memory.  Is it better for us to avoid overloading these words
> >> too much to avoid the possible confusion?
> >
> > Given that LRU and migration are usually different contexts, I think
> > we'd be fine, unless we want a third pair of terms.
>
> This is true before memory tiering is introduced.  In systems with
> multiple types memory (called memory tiering), LRU is used to identify
> pages to be migrated to the slow memory node.  Please take a look at
> can_demote(), which is called in shrink_page_list().

This sounds clearly two contexts to me. Promotion/demotion (move
between generations) while pages are on LRU; or promotion/demotion
(migration between nodes) after pages are taken off LRU.

Note that promotion/demotion are not used in function names. They are
used to describe how MGLRU works, in comparison with the
active/inactive LRU. Memory tiering is not within this context.

> >> > +static int get_swappiness(struct mem_cgroup *memcg)
> >> > +{
> >> > +     return mem_cgroup_get_nr_swap_pages(memcg) >= MIN_LRU_BATCH ?
> >> > +            mem_cgroup_swappiness(memcg) : 0;
> >> > +}
> >>
> >> After we introduced demotion support in Linux kernel.  The anonymous
> >> pages in the fast memory node could be demoted to the slow memory node
> >> via the page reclaiming mechanism as in the following commit.  Can you
> >> consider that too?
> >
> > Sure. How do I check whether there is still space on the slow node?
>
> You can always check the watermark of the slow node.  But now, we
> actually don't check that (as in demote_page_list()), instead we will
> wake up kswapd of the slow node.  The intended behavior is something
> like,
>
>   DRAM -> PMEM -> disk

I'll look into this later -- for now, it's a low priority because
there isn't much demand. I'll bump it up if anybody is interested in
giving it a try. Meanwhile, please feel free to cook up something if
you are interested.