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;
Sender: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 12:55:16 -0700
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        John Dias <joaodias@google.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Martin Liu <liumartin@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: don't be stuck to rmap lock on reclaim path
Message-ID: <Yn1mJEjP3LH8rl3t@google.com>
References: <20220510215423.164547-1-minchan@kernel.org>
 <20220511153349.045ab3865f25920dce11ca16@linux-foundation.org>
 <Ynw/RRsEj33gq+Hf@google.com>
 <20220511190523.7d159b2e9caccbf13469e74e@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220511190523.7d159b2e9caccbf13469e74e@linux-foundation.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 07:05:23PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 15:57:09 -0700 Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > Could we burn much CPU time pointlessly churning though the LRU?  Could
> > > it mess up aging decisions enough to be performance-affecting in any
> > > workload?
> > 
> > Yes, correct. However, we are already churning LRUs by several
> > ways. For example, isolate and putback from LRU list for page
> > migration from several sources(typical example is compaction)
> > and trylock_page and sc->gfp_mask not allowing page to be
> > reclaimed in shrink_page_list.
> 
> Well.  "we're already doing a risky thing so it's OK to do more of that
> thing"?

I meant the aging is not rocket science.


> 
> > > 
> > > Something else?
> > 
> > One thing I am worry about was the granularity of the churning.
> > Example above was page granuarity churning so might be execuse
> > but this one is address space's churning, especically for file LRU
> > (i_mmap_rwsem) which might cause too many rotating and live-lock
> > in the end(keey rotating in small LRU with heavy memory pressure).
> > 
> > If it could be a problem, maybe we use sc->priority to stop
> > the skipping on a certain level of memory pressure.
> > 
> > Any thought? Do we really need it?
> 
> Are we able to think of a test which might demonstrate any worst case? 
> Whip that up and see what the numbers say?

Yeah, let me create a worst test case to see how it goes.

A thread keep reading a file-backed vma with 2xRAM file but other threads
keep changing other vmas mapped at the same file so heavy i_mmap_rwsem
contention in aging path.

> 
> It's a bit of a drag, but if we don't do it, our users surely will ;)