Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <3bd45269-557d-db5a-2224-3d960ba3159d@bytedance.com>
Date:   Sun, 2 Apr 2023 21:36:53 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.9.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: swap: use folio_batch_reinit() in
 folio_batch_move_lru()
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     willy@infradead.org, lstoakes@gmail.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230331095858.51810-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
 <20230331150430.546de954b0a7918f042c562e@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230331150430.546de954b0a7918f042c562e@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Andrew,

On 2023/4/1 06:04, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 17:58:57 +0800 Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> wrote:
> 
>> In folio_batch_move_lru(), the folio_batch is not freshly
>> initialised, so it should call folio_batch_reinit() as
>> pagevec_lru_move_fn() did before.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/mm/swap.c
>> +++ b/mm/swap.c
>> @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ static void folio_batch_move_lru(struct folio_batch *fbatch, move_fn_t move_fn)
>>   	if (lruvec)
>>   		unlock_page_lruvec_irqrestore(lruvec, flags);
>>   	folios_put(fbatch->folios, folio_batch_count(fbatch));
>> -	folio_batch_init(fbatch);
>> +	folio_batch_reinit(fbatch);
>>   }
>>   
>>   static void folio_batch_add_and_move(struct folio_batch *fbatch,
> 
> Well...  why?  This could leave the kernel falsely thinking that the
> folio's pages have been drained from the per-cpu LRU addition
> magazines.
> 
> Maybe that's desirable, maybe not, but I think this change needs much
> much more explanation describing why it is beneficial.
> 
> 
> folio_batch_reinit() seems to be a custom thing for the mlock code -
> perhaps it just shouldn't exist, and its operation should instead be
> open-coded in mlock_folio_batch().

The folio_batch_reinit() corresponds to pagevec_reinit(),
the pagevec_reinit() was originally used in pagevec_lru_move_fn()
and mlock_pagevec(), not a custom thing for the mlock code.


The commit c2bc16817aa0 ("mm/swap: add folio_batch_move_lru()")
introduces folio_batch_move_lru() to replace pagevec_lru_move_fn(),
but calls folio_batch_init() (corresponding to pagevec_init()) instead
of folio_batch_reinit() (corresponding to pagevec_reinit()). This
change was not explained in the commit message and seems like an
oversight.

> 
> 
> The dynamics and rules around ->percpu_pvec_drained are a bit
> mysterious.  A code comment which explains all of this would be
> useful.

The commit d9ed0d08b6c6 ("mm: only drain per-cpu pagevecs once per
pagevec usage") originally introduced the ->drained (which was later
renamed to ->percpu_pvec_drained by commit 7f0b5fb953e7), which is
intended to drain per-cpu pagevecs only once per pagevec usage.

Maybe it would be better to add the following code comment:

diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
index 423199ee8478..107c4a13e476 100644
--- a/mm/swap.c
+++ b/mm/swap.c
@@ -1055,6 +1055,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(release_pages);
   */
  void __pagevec_release(struct pagevec *pvec)
  {
+       /* Only drain per-cpu pagevecs once per pagevec usage */
         if (!pvec->percpu_pvec_drained) {
                 lru_add_drain();
                 pvec->percpu_pvec_drained = true;

Please let me know if I missed something.

Thanks,
Qi

>