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;
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2023 23:52:03 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@suse.com, josef@toxicpanda.com,
        jack@suse.cz, ldufour@linux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com,
        michel@lespinasse.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, jglisse@google.com,
        vbabka@suse.cz, minchan@google.com, dave@stgolabs.net,
        punit.agrawal@bytedance.com, lstoakes@gmail.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm: do not increment pgfault stats when page
 fault handler retries
Message-ID: <ZD3Nk0u+nxOT4snZ@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230415000818.1955007-1-surenb@google.com>
 <ZD2gsbN2K66oXT69@x1n>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZD2gsbN2K66oXT69@x1n>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 03:40:33PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> >  	/*
> > -	 * We don't do accounting for some specific faults:
> > -	 *
> > -	 * - Unsuccessful faults (e.g. when the address wasn't valid).  That
> > -	 *   includes arch_vma_access_permitted() failing before reaching here.
> > -	 *   So this is not a "this many hardware page faults" counter.  We
> > -	 *   should use the hw profiling for that.
> > -	 *
> > -	 * - Incomplete faults (VM_FAULT_RETRY).  They will only be counted
> > -	 *   once they're completed.
> > +	 * Do not account for incomplete faults (VM_FAULT_RETRY). They will be
> > +	 * counted upon completion.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (ret & (VM_FAULT_ERROR | VM_FAULT_RETRY))
> > +	if (ret & VM_FAULT_RETRY)
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	/* Register both successful and failed faults in PGFAULT counters. */
> > +	count_vm_event(PGFAULT);
> > +	count_memcg_event_mm(mm, PGFAULT);
> 
> Is there reason on why vm events accountings need to be explicitly
> different from perf events right below on handling ERROR?

I think so.  ERROR is quite different from RETRY.  If we are, for
example, handling a SIGSEGV (perhaps a GC language?) that should be
accounted.  If we can't handle a page fault right now, and need to
retry within the kernel, that should not be accounted.