Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-9380-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
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> <CAOUHufZ-hAAB+9iL3K-YokN4oVJoiC9dVQ+6zLu-M4Ag52TY5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGWkznGUvPeWkjcy42dudx_+n19dr7SU3B3GGO6JovXHB-Vyzg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOUHufajdi7LjyJWNoDx7RP_i9mmN8j9dBqO7GC4A6YNPNnygw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOUHufajdi7LjyJWNoDx7RP_i9mmN8j9dBqO7GC4A6YNPNnygw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 13:53:18 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGWkznFb2vn_+2ho7BQ1cqVDx0cyFzoffS3_nk4hYUNuRSsVGw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] mm: mark folio accessed in minor fault
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, "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 Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 2:33=E2=80=AFPM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 11:28=E2=80=AFPM Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gm=
ail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 12:53=E2=80=AFPM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com> wr=
ote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 9:09=E2=80=AFPM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infrade=
ad.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@in=
fradead.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 affe=
ctions:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. NR_ACTIVE_FILE is not accurate as expected.
> > > > > > > 2. Low reclaiming efficiency caused by dummy nactive folio wh=
ich should
> > > > > > >    be kept as earlier as shrink_active_list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would like to suggest mark the folio be accessed in minor f=
ault to
> > > > > > > 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 h=
ave 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 pa=
tch
> > > > > and provide benchmark data in new patch set.
> > > >
> > > > Understood.  I don't know the history of this, so I'm not sure if t=
he
> > > > 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.
> > Thanks. Please correct me if I am wrong. IMO, there will be no
> > minor-fault for single-use folios
>
> Why not? What prevents a specific *access pattern* from triggering minor =
faults?
Please find the following chart for mapped page state machine
transfication. We can find that:
1. RFC behaves the same as the mainline in (1)(2)
2. VM_EXEC mapped pages are activated earlier than mainline which help
improve scan efficiency in (3)(4)
3. none VM_EXEC mapped pages are dropped as vfs pages do during 3rd scan.

(1)
                                  1st access
shrink_active_list              1st scan(shink_folio_list)
2nd scan(shrink_folio_list')
mainline                     INA/UNR                        NA
                          INA/REF
DROP
RFC                           INA/UNR                        NA
                           INA/REF
DROP

(2)
                                  1st access                   2nd
access                        shrink_active_list          1st
scan(shink_folio_list)
mainline                     INA/UNR                     INA/UNR
                      NA                                 ACT/REF
RFC                           INA/UNR                     INA/REF
                        NA                                 ACT/REF

(3)
                                  1st access
shrink_active_list        1st scan(shink_folio_list)       2nd access
      2nd scan(shrink_active_list)     3rd scan(shink_folio_list)
mainline                     INA/UNR                        NA
                          INA/REF                           INA/REF
                NA                                     ACT/REF
RFC                           INA/UNR                        NA
                           INA/REF                           ACT/REF
                ACT/REF                           NA
(VM_EXEC)
RFC                           INA/UNR                        NA
                           INA/REF                           ACT/REF
                INA/REF                            DROP
(non VM_EXEC)

(4)
                                  1st access                   2nd
access                         3rd access
shrink_active_list                   shink_folio_list
mainline                     INA/UNR                       INA/UNR
                       INA/UNR                          NA
                           ACT/REF
RFC                           INA/UNR                       INA/REF
                         ACT/REF                         ACT/REF
                       NA
(VM_EXEC)
RFC                           INA/UNR                       INA/REF
                         ACT/REF                         ACT/REF
                       NA
(Non VM_EXEC)
>
> > which means RFC could behave the
> > same as mainline does now? I think it doesn't make sense to have
> > multiple-mapped pages filled in page_list to shrink_page_list since we
> > can distinguish them in advance.