Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-197444-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: <20240529180510.2295118-1-jthoughton@google.com>
 <20240529180510.2295118-3-jthoughton@google.com> <CAOUHufYFHKLwt1PWp2uS6g174GZYRZURWJAmdUWs5eaKmhEeyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zll7IuGYGG5uI20W@linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <Zll7IuGYGG5uI20W@linux.dev>
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 14:31:17 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOUHufa50Dy8CJ5+D10Khs4NU-3Pv0B8qi-GYkcppctTVUkPcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/7] mm: multi-gen LRU: Have secondary MMUs participate
 in aging
To: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
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>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, 
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>, 
	Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.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 Fri, May 31, 2024 at 1:24=E2=80=AFAM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.de=
v> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 03:03:21PM -0600, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 12:05=E2=80=AFPM James Houghton <jthoughton@goo=
gle.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 oldes=
t
> > > 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.
> >
> > Correct, and as I explained offline, this is the only reasonable
> > behavior if we can't locklessly walk secondary MMUs.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Grabbing the MMU lock for write to scan sucks, no argument there. But
> can you please be specific about the impact of read lock v. RCU in the
> case of arm64? I had asked about this before and you never replied.
>
> My concern remains that adding support for software table walkers
> outside of the MMU lock entirely requires more work than just deferring
> the deallocation to an RCU callback. Walkers that previously assumed
> 'exclusive' access while holding the MMU lock for write must now cope
> with volatile PTEs.
>
> Yes, this problem already exists when hardware sets the AF, but the
> lock-free walker implementation needs to be generic so it can be applied
> for other PTE bits.

Direct reclaim is multi-threaded and each reclaimer can take the mmu
lock for read (testing the A-bit) or write (unmapping before paging
out) on arm64. The fundamental problem of using the readers-writer
lock in this case is priority inversion: the readers have lower
priority than the writers, so ideally, we don't want the readers to
block the writers at all.

Using my previous (crude) analogy: puting the bill right in front of
you (the writers) profits immediately whereas searching for the
largest bill (the readers) can be futile.

As I said earlier, I prefer we drop the arm64 support for now, but I
will not object to taking the mmu lock for read when clearing the
A-bit, as long as we fully understand the problem here and document it
clearly.