Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-197648-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240531092001.30428-1-byungchul@sk.com> <20240531092001.30428-10-byungchul@sk.com>
 <fab1dd64-c652-4160-93b4-7b483a8874da@intel.com> <CAHyrMpxETdVewTH3MCS4qPyD6Xf1zRUfWZf-8SCdpCFj2Pj_Wg@mail.gmail.com>
 <f17f33e8-1c1f-460f-8c5a-713476f524a3@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <f17f33e8-1c1f-460f-8c5a-713476f524a3@intel.com>
From: Byungchul Park <lkml.byungchul.park@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 11:20:08 +0900
Message-ID: <CAHyrMpzU_f0TbEA6HpuqTFOBY7nHOQGXR3VpOeHzu62zQxvyDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 09/12] mm: implement LUF(Lazy Unmap Flush) defering
 tlb flush when folios get unmapped
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul@sk.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	kernel_team@skhynix.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ying.huang@intel.com, 
	vernhao@tencent.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, hughd@google.com, 
	willy@infradead.org, david@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, luto@kernel.org, 
	tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, 
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, rjgolo@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/31/24 11:04, Byungchul Park wrote:
> ...
> > I don't believe you do not agree with the concept itself.  Thing is
> > the current version is not good enough.  I will do my best by doing
> > what I can do.
>
> More performance is good.  I agree with that.
>
> But it has to be weighed against the risk and the complexity.  The more
> I look at this approach, the more I think this is not a good trade off.
> There's a lot of risk and a lot of complexity and we haven't seen the

All the complexity comes from the fact that I can't use a new space in
struct page - that can make the design even lockless.

I agree that keeping things simple is the best but I don't think all the
existing fields in struct page are the result of trying to make things
simple that you love.  Some of them are more complicated.

I'd like to find a better way together instead of yelling "it's unworthy
cuz it's too complicated and there's too little space in mm world to
accommodate new things".

However, for the issues already discussed, I will think about it more
before the next spin.

        Byungchul

> full complexity picture.  The gaps are being fixed by adding complexity
> in new subsystems (the VFS in this case).
>
> There are going to be winners and losers, and this version for example
> makes file writes lose performance.
>
> Just to be crystal clear: I disagree with the concept of leaving stale
> TLB entries in place in an attempt to gain performance.
>