Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-7847-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231220102948.1963798-1-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
 <ZYL2rbD5UTz3s8gg@casper.infradead.org> <CAGWkznFcMkkqsKJSyHJfts9ZiYsxxg_dFTccieQ4+boRDJgG4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZYO6bLcCRYlo290g@casper.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZYO6bLcCRYlo290g@casper.infradead.org>
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 21:53:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOUHufZ-hAAB+9iL3K-YokN4oVJoiC9dVQ+6zLu-M4Ag52TY5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] mm: mark folio accessed in minor fault
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>, "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, steve.kang@unisoc.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 9:09=E2=80=AFPM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 09:58:25AM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 10:14=E2=80=AFPM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradea=
d.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 06:29:48PM +0800, zhaoyang.huang wrote:
> > > > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
> > > >
> > > > Inactive mapped folio will be promoted to active only when it is
> > > > scanned in shrink_inactive_list, while the vfs folio will do this
> > > > immidiatly when it is accessed. These will introduce two affections=
:
> > > >
> > > > 1. NR_ACTIVE_FILE is not accurate as expected.
> > > > 2. Low reclaiming efficiency caused by dummy nactive folio which sh=
ould
> > > >    be kept as earlier as shrink_active_list.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to suggest mark the folio be accessed in minor fault t=
o
> > > > solve this situation.
> > >
> > > This isn't going to be as effective as you imagine.  Almost all file
> > > faults are handled through filemap_map_pages().  So I must ask, what
> > > testing have you done with this patch?
> > >
> > > And while you're gathering data, what effect would this patch have on=
 your
> > > workloads?
> > Thanks for heads-up, I am out of date for readahead mechanism. My goal
>
> It's not a terribly new mechanism ... filemap_map_pages() was added nine
> years ago in 2014 by commit f1820361f83d
>
> > is to have mapped file pages behave like other pages which could be
> > promoted immediately when they are accessed. I will update the patch
> > and provide benchmark data in new patch set.
>
> Understood.  I don't know the history of this, so I'm not sure if the
> decision to not mark folios as accessed here was intentional or not.
> I suspect it's entirely unintentional.

It's intentional. For the active/inactive LRU, all folios start
inactive. The first scan of a folio transfers the A-bit (if it's set
during the initial fault) to PG_referenced; the second scan of this
folio, if the A-bit is set again, moves it to the active list. This
way single-use folios, i.e., folios mapped for file streaming, can be
reclaimed quickly, since they are "demoted" rather than "promoted" on
the second scan. This RFC would regress memory streaming workloads.