Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-194717-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 14:59:55 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CAOUHufYFHKLwt1PWp2uS6g174GZYRZURWJAmdUWs5eaKmhEeyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240529180510.2295118-1-jthoughton@google.com>
 <20240529180510.2295118-3-jthoughton@google.com> <CAOUHufYFHKLwt1PWp2uS6g174GZYRZURWJAmdUWs5eaKmhEeyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ZlelW93_T6P-ZuSZ@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] mm: multi-gen LRU: Have secondary MMUs participate
 in aging
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Cc: James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, 
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, 
	Ankit Agrawal <ankita@nvidia.com>, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>, 
	Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>, Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>, 
	Bibo Mao <maobibo@loongson.cn>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, 
	David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, 
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, 
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, 
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>, 
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, 
	Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, 
	Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, 
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>, Tianrui Zhao <zhaotianrui@loongson.cn>, 
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org, 
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, 
	loongarch@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 29, 2024, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 12:05=E2=80=AFPM James Houghton <jthoughton@googl=
e.com> wrote:
> >
> > Secondary MMUs are currently consulted for access/age information at
> > eviction time, but before then, we don't get accurate age information.
> > That is, pages that are mostly accessed through a secondary MMU (like
> > guest memory, used by KVM) will always just proceed down to the oldest
> > generation, and then at eviction time, if KVM reports the page to be
> > young, the page will be activated/promoted back to the youngest
> > generation.
>=20
> Correct, and as I explained offline, this is the only reasonable
> behavior if we can't locklessly walk secondary MMUs.
>=20
> Just for the record, the (crude) analogy I used was:
> Imagine a large room with many bills ($1, $5, $10, ...) on the floor,
> but you are only allowed to pick up 10 of them (and put them in your
> pocket). A smart move would be to survey the room *first and then*
> pick up the largest ones. But if you are carrying a 500 lbs backpack,
> you would just want to pick up whichever that's in front of you rather
> than walk the entire room.
>=20
> MGLRU should only scan (or lookaround) secondary MMUs if it can be
> done lockless. Otherwise, it should just fall back to the existing
> approach, which existed in previous versions but is removed in this
> version.

IIUC, by "existing approach" you mean completely ignore secondary MMUs that=
 don't
implement a lockless walk?