Message-ID: <b07c5e99-b251-2509-dfac-0f8e571d39d7@shopee.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Mar 2023 16:05:47 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove redundant check in handle_mm_fault
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230306024959.131468-1-haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
 <df3997ed-a844-597b-fbb1-154caad78543@redhat.com>
 <354360d5-dce6-a11c-ee61-d41e615bfa05@shopee.com>
 <ZAamFX/hq6Y/iNJb@casper.infradead.org>
 <6df72872-2829-47ab-552c-7ef8a6470e6f@shopee.com>
 <562e9cc3-d0aa-23e9-bd19-266b5aef2ae7@redhat.com>
From:   Haifeng Xu <haifeng.xu@shopee.com>
In-Reply-To: <562e9cc3-d0aa-23e9-bd19-266b5aef2ae7@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2023/3/8 17:13, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 08.03.23 10:03, Haifeng Xu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2023/3/7 10:48, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 10:36:55AM +0800, Haifeng Xu wrote:
>>>> On 2023/3/6 21:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> On 06.03.23 03:49, Haifeng Xu wrote:
>>>>>> mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize() has checked whether current memcg_in_oom is
>>>>>> set or not, so remove the check in handle_mm_fault().
>>>>>
>>>>> "mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize() will returned immediately if memcg_in_oom is not set, so remove the check from handle_mm_fault()".
>>>>>
>>>>> However, that requires now always an indirect function call -- do we care about dropping that optimization?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If memcg_in_oom is set, we will check it twice, one is from handle_mm_fault(), the other is from mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize(). That seems a bit redundant.
>>>>
>>>> if memcg_in_oom is not set, mem_cgroup_oom_synchronize() returns directly. Though it's an indirect function call, but the time spent can be negligible
>>>> compare to the whole mm user falut preocess. And that won't cause stack overflow error.
>>>
>>> I suggest you measure it.
>>
>> test steps:
>> 1) Run command: ./mmap_anon_test(global alloc, so the memcg_in_oom is not set)
>> 2) Calculate the quotient of cost time and page-fault counts, run 10 rounds and average the results.
>>
>> The test result shows that whether using indirect function call or not, the time spent in user fault
>> is almost the same, about 2.3ms.
> 
> I guess most of the benchmark time is consumed by allocating fresh pages in your test (also, why exactly do you use MAP_SHARED?).
> 
> Is 2.3ms the total time for writing to that 1GiB of memory or how did you derive that number? Posting both results would be cleaner (with more digits ;) ).
> 

Hi Daivd, the details of test result were posted last week. Do you have any suggestions or more concerns about this change?

Thanks.