Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-68049-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:16:27 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>, Yu Zhao
 <yuzhao@google.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Chun-Tse Shao
 <ctshao@google.com>, Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>, Michal Hocko
 <mhocko@suse.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>, Huang Ying
 <ying.huang@intel.com>, Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, Kairui Song
 <kasong@tencent.com>, Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: swap: async free swap slot cache entries
Message-Id: <20240215201627.5abd1841192feaa262d545ba@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1b9a69d1ecaac45a228eb2993d5d9b8234a84155.camel@linux.intel.com>
References: <20240214-async-free-v4-1-6abe0d59f85f@kernel.org>
	<20240215161114.6bd444ed839f778eefdf6e0a@linux-foundation.org>
	<1b9a69d1ecaac45a228eb2993d5d9b8234a84155.camel@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 17:38:38 -0800 Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> wr=
ote:

> > What this description lacks is any description of why anyone cares.=20
> >=20
> > The patch clearly decreases overall throughput (speed-vs-latency is a
> > common tradeoff).

This, please.

> > And the "we don't know how to fix this properly so punt it into a
> > kernel thread" approach remains lame.  For example, the risk that the
> > now-liberated allocator can outpace the async freeing, resulting in
> > unlimited object windup.
>=20
>=20
> Andrew,
>=20
> What you are saying about outpacing asyn free is true for v1 and v2 versi=
ons of the patch.
>=20
> But in this latest version, if another reclaim comes in before the async =
free has kicked in,
> we would be freeing the whole cache directly, same as original code, with=
out waiting
> for the async free.  It is different from the first version
> where you go into the free one at a time mode while waiting for the async=
 free.=A0
> That was also my objection to the first two versions as you could be in t=
his
> slow free one at a time mode for a long time.
>=20
> So now we should not have unlimited object windup.  And we would be doing=
 free
> in batch of 64, either still in the direct path or in the async path.
>=20

OK, thanks, I didn't read closely enough,

> If the next swap fault comes in very fast, before the async
> free gets a chance to run. It will directly free all the swap
> cache in the swap fault the same way as previously.

And might it be a win to cancel the async_work in this case?


Again, without a clear description of the userspace-visible effects of
this problem I am groping in the dark.  My hands blindly landed upon
the question: the overall effect here is to leave worst-case latency
unaltered, but to decrease average latency.  Does this satisfy the
yet-to-be-described requirements?


Also, the V4 patch's quoted quantitative testing results are pasted
from the V2 patch's.  V2 was a fundamentally different implementation.=20
I think it is fair to say that V4 is "untested", with regard to
satisfying its runtime objectives.