Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-49061-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/readahead: limit sync readahead while too many
 active refault
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
References: <20240201100835.1626685-1-liushixin2@huawei.com>
 <20240201100835.1626685-3-liushixin2@huawei.com>
 <20240201093749.ll7uzgt7ixy7kkhw@quack3>
 <c768cab9-4ccb-9618-24a8-b51d3f141340@huawei.com>
 <20240201173130.frpaqpy7iyzias5j@quack3>
CC: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner
	<brauner@kernel.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Andrew Morton
	<akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>
From: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <b9e9ddc7-6e12-b9af-e08b-8e85b8372607@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 09:25:14 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.7.1
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20240201173130.frpaqpy7iyzias5j@quack3>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2024/2/2 1:31, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 01-02-24 18:41:30, Liu Shixin wrote:
>> On 2024/2/1 17:37, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Thu 01-02-24 18:08:35, Liu Shixin wrote:
>>>> When the pagefault is not for write and the refault distance is close,
>>>> the page will be activated directly. If there are too many such pages in
>>>> a file, that means the pages may be reclaimed immediately.
>>>> In such situation, there is no positive effect to read-ahead since it will
>>>> only waste IO. So collect the number of such pages and when the number is
>>>> too large, stop bothering with read-ahead for a while until it decreased
>>>> automatically.
>>>>
>>>> Define 'too large' as 10000 experientially, which can solves the problem
>>>> and does not affect by the occasional active refault.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Liu Shixin <liushixin2@huawei.com>
>>> So I'm not convinced this new logic is needed. We already have
>>> ra->mmap_miss which gets incremented when a page fault has to read the page
>>> (and decremented when a page fault found the page already in cache). This
>>> should already work to detect trashing as well, shouldn't it? If it does
>>> not, why?
>>>
>>> 								Honza
>> ra->mmap_miss doesn't help, it increased only one in do_sync_mmap_readahead()
>> and then decreased one for every page in filemap_map_pages(). So in this scenario,
>> it can't exceed MMAP_LOTSAMISS.
> I see, OK. But that's a (longstanding) bug in how mmap_miss is handled. Can
> you please test whether attached patches fix the trashing for you? At least
> now I can see mmap_miss properly increments when we are hitting uncached
> pages...  Thanks!
>
> 								Honza
Thanks for the patch, I will test it.
>