Message-ID: <50dd030c-95a5-7bd0-bd93-1a5777923669@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 13 Mar 2023 13:14:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/6] ksm: support unsharing zero pages placed by KSM
Content-Language: en-US
To:     xu xin <xu.xin.sc@gmail.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com,
        jiang.xuexin@zte.com.cn, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, ran.xiaokai@zte.com.cn, xu.xin16@zte.com.cn,
        yang.yang29@zte.com.cn
References: <david@redhat.com> <20230311053714.178439-1-xu.xin16@zte.com.cn>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <20230311053714.178439-1-xu.xin16@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11.03.23 06:37, xu xin wrote:
> [sorry to reply so late, on vacation too, and my mailing system has some kind of problem]
> 
>> [sorry, was on vacation last week]
> 
>>> Why use flags if they both conditions are mutually exclusive?
>>
>> Just to make the return value of break_ksm_pmd_entry() more expressive and
>> understandable. because break_ksm_pmd_entry have three types of returned
>> values (0, 1, 2).
> 
>> It adds confusion. Just simplify it please.
> 
> So I think it's good to add a enum value of 0 listed here as suggested
> by Claudio Imbrenda.
> 

Please keep it simple.

>>
>>> MADV_UNMERGEABLE -> unmerge_ksm_pages() will never unshare the shared
>>> zeropage? I thought the patch description mentions that that is one of
>>> the goals?
>>
>> No, MADV_UNMERGEABLE will trigger KSM to unshare the shared zeropages in the
>> context of "get_next_rmap_item() -> unshare_zero_pages(), but not directly in the
>> context of " madvise()-> unmerge_ksm_pages() ". The reason for this is to avoid
>> increasing long delays of madvise() calling on unsharing zero pages.
>>
> 
>> Why do we care and make this case special?
> 
> Yeah, the code seems a bit special, but it is a helpless way and best choice, because the
> action of unsharing zero-pages is too complex and CPU consuming because checking whether the
> page we get is actually placed by KSM or not is not a easy thing in the context of
> unmerge_ksm_pages.
> 
> In experiment, unsharing zero-pages in the context of unmerge_ksm_pages cause user' madvise()
> spend 5 times the time than the way of the current patch.

Who exactly cares  and why?

> 
> So let's leave it as it is now. I will add a (short) explanation of when and why the new
> unshare_zero_page flag should be used.

I vote to keep it as simple as possible in the initial version.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb