Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-99614-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240311150058.1122862-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com> <20240311150058.1122862-6-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240311150058.1122862-6-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 06:30:40 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4zq4jdDdG6Cne6SESSmJQJnGwaQF5y3BHOaLHFdED0zYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] mm: vmscan: Avoid split during shrink_folio_list()
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, 
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>, Gao Xiang <xiang@kernel.org>, 
	Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, 
	Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@kernel.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:01=E2=80=AFPM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com=
> wrote:
>
> Now that swap supports storing all mTHP sizes, avoid splitting large
> folios before swap-out. This benefits performance of the swap-out path
> by eliding split_folio_to_list(), which is expensive, and also sets us
> up for swapping in large folios in a future series.
>
> If the folio is partially mapped, we continue to split it since we want
> to avoid the extra IO overhead and storage of writing out pages
> uneccessarily.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
> ---
>  mm/vmscan.c | 9 +++++----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> index cf7d4cf47f1a..0ebec99e04c6 100644
> --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> @@ -1222,11 +1222,12 @@ static unsigned int shrink_folio_list(struct list=
_head *folio_list,
>                                         if (!can_split_folio(folio, NULL)=
)
>                                                 goto activate_locked;
>                                         /*
> -                                        * Split folios without a PMD map=
 right
> -                                        * away. Chances are some or all =
of the
> -                                        * tail pages can be freed withou=
t IO.
> +                                        * Split partially mapped folios =
map
> +                                        * right away. Chances are some o=
r all
> +                                        * of the tail pages can be freed
> +                                        * without IO.
>                                          */
> -                                       if (!folio_entire_mapcount(folio)=
 &&
> +                                       if (!list_empty(&folio->_deferred=
_list) &&

Hi Ryan,
After reconsidering our previous discussion about PMD-mapped large
folios, I've pondered
the possibility of PMD-mapped Transparent Huge Pages (THPs) being
mapped by multiple
processes. In such a scenario, if one process decides to unmap a
portion of the folio while
others retain the entire mapping, it raises questions about how the
system should handle
this situation. Would the large folio be placed in a deferred list? If
so, splitting it might not
yield benefits, as neither I/O nor swap slots would increase in this
case by not splitting it.

Regarding PTE-mapped large folios, the absence of an indicator like
"entire_map" makes it
challenging to identify cases where the entire folio is mapped. Thus,
splitting seems to be
the only viable solution in such circumstances.

>                                             split_folio_to_list(folio,
>                                                                 folio_lis=
t))
>                                                 goto activate_locked;
> --
> 2.25.1

Thanks
Barry