Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-79466-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240223041550.77157-1-21cnbao@gmail.com> <ZdkXpcAB6xWj2geh@google.com>
 <CAGsJ_4zPVNcP-7YQ8wkxmZu0xLkaQ-hyh98Ot0+RpyXm9o1krQ@mail.gmail.com> <ZdkpRavkakwCnoIg@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZdkpRavkakwCnoIg@google.com>
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 12:37:59 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4xZQGgzFxEMTJby5MBb22GKV3+X_pLdz1E-1m_hzM4x5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] mm: madvise: pageout: ignore references rather than
 clearing young
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, sj@kernel.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, damon@lists.linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mhocko@suse.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, 
	Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 7:24=E2=80=AFAM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> wr=
ote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 11:20:36AM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 11:09=E2=80=AFAM Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.or=
g> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Barry,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:15:50PM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
> > > > From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
> > > >
> > > > While doing MADV_PAGEOUT, the current code will clear PTE young
> > > > so that vmscan won't read young flags to allow the reclamation
> > > > of madvised folios to go ahead.
> > >
> > > Isn't it good to accelerate reclaiming? vmscan checks whether the
> > > page was accessed recenlty by the young bit from pte and if it is,
> > > it doesn't reclaim the page. Since we have cleared the young bit
> > > in pte in madvise_pageout, vmscan is likely to reclaim the page
> > > since it wouldn't see the ferencecd_ptes from folio_check_references.
> >
> > right, but the proposal is asking vmscan to skip the folio_check_refere=
nces
> > if this is a PAGEOUT. so we remove both pte_clear_young and rmap
> > of folio_check_references.
> >
> > >
> > > Could you clarify if I miss something here?
> >
> > guest you missed we are skipping folio_check_references now.
> > we remove both, thus, make MADV_PAGEOUT 6% faster.
>
> This makes sense to me.
>
> Only concern was race with mlock during the reclaim but the race was alre=
ady
> there for normal page reclaming. Thus, mlock would already handle it.

yes. in try_to_unmap_one(), mlock()'s vma is not reclaimed,
while (page_vma_mapped_walk(&pvmw)) {
      /* Unexpected PMD-mapped THP? */
      VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!pvmw.pte, folio);

      /*
       * If the folio is in an mlock()d vma, we must not swap it out.
       */
      if (!(flags & TTU_IGNORE_MLOCK) &&
               (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED)) {
            /* Restore the mlock which got missed */
                 if (!folio_test_large(folio))
                           mlock_vma_folio(folio, vma);
                  page_vma_mapped_walk_done(&pvmw);
                  ret =3D false;
                  break;
  }

BTW=EF=BC=8C
Hi SeongJae,
I am not quite sure if damon also needs this, so I have kept damon as is by
setting ignore_references =3D false.  MADV_PAGEOUT is an explicit hint user=
s
don't want the memory to be reclaimed, I don't know if it is true for damon=
 as
well. If you have some comments, please chime in.

>
> Thanks.

Thanks
Barry