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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1680086855-7989-1-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
 <ZCRRaHHKVt7fpvmD@cmpxchg.org> <CAGWkznFRHbYv2ev3FU10zapka_6MDQ+g_-b0jufzqcAEAKUqFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZCVXFLA+sarzGG18@cmpxchg.org> <CAGWkznEdSaZRritHazo301Zyaage_R_4Grr4m8EirH7j8_-oOg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGWkznEdSaZRritHazo301Zyaage_R_4Grr4m8EirH7j8_-oOg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Apr 2023 16:18:53 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGWkznEOfyULrBOR=AJRKPdPrED+xwrtGbLXEaFmWr1xfFbOuA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: mark folio as workingset in lru_deactivate_fn
To:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc:     "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ke.wang@unisoc.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 5:41=E2=80=AFPM Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail=
.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 5:32=E2=80=AFPM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.o=
rg> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 09:38:48AM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:55=E2=80=AFPM Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpx=
chg.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 06:47:35PM +0800, zhaoyang.huang wrote:
> > > > > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > folio will skip of being set as workingset in lru_deactivate_fn.
> > > >
> > > > Can you please elaborate why that's undesirable? What's the problem
> > > > you're fixing?
> > > If I am correct, folio will skip being set as workingset when moving
> > > from active lru to inactive lru, which is performed on every folio in
> > > shrink_active_list during normal reclaim.
> >
> > shrink_active_list directly calls folio_set_workingset(). The function
> > you're editing is used for things like MADV_COLD and truncate().
> Yes.
> >
> > It sounds like there is just a misunderstanding of the code, not an
> > actual problem.
> Isn't that a problem? As my understanding, MADV_COLD could be deemed
> as a stimulation of normal reclaiming which turbo the folio towards
> eviction, while the page moving by it should be also delt in the same
> way(PG_active has been cleaned)
Sorry, I am still confused. Does it mean the pages deactivated via
MADV_COLD like methods should NOT be deemed as workingset pages?