Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-209772-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/gup: don't check page lru flag before draining it
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
 linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, liuzixing@hygon.cn
References: <0d7a4405-9a2e-4bd1-ba89-a31486155233@redhat.com>
 <dc7a0b61-8d3f-7205-2f6d-c2b12500947a@126.com>
 <776de760-e817-43b2-bd00-8ce96f4e37a8@redhat.com>
 <7063920f-963a-4b3e-a3f3-c5cc227bc877@redhat.com>
 <48150a28-ed48-49ff-9432-9cd30cda4da4@linux.alibaba.com>
 <11ef3deb-d1e3-46d5-97ed-9ba3c1fbbba9@redhat.com>
 <697a9bc2-a655-4035-aa5e-7d3acb23e79d@redhat.com>
 <d6deb928-3466-45ea-939b-cb5aca9bc7b4@linux.alibaba.com>
 <3a368e38-a4cb-413e-a6d9-41c6b3dbd5ae@redhat.com>
 <48fb0e58-16d1-7956-cf35-74741826617a@126.com>
 <ZmR1dVUB5mE2If9t@casper.infradead.org>
 <617f9e36-9334-4630-a6b9-473f2dd570d4@redhat.com>
From: yangge1116 <yangge1116@126.com>
Message-ID: <8351052a-5c21-c383-544b-3166e883587c@126.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:20:26 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <617f9e36-9334-4630-a6b9-473f2dd570d4@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


在 2024/6/9 上午12:03, David Hildenbrand 写道:
> On 08.06.24 17:15, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 08, 2024 at 12:38:49PM +0800, yangge1116 wrote:
>>> Can we add a PG_lru_batch flag to determine whether a page is in lru 
>>> batch?
>>> If we can, seems this problem will be easier.
>>
>> Page flags are in short supply.  You'd need a really good justification.
>>
> 
> A flag would not be able to handle the "part of multiple LRU batches" 
> that should currently possible (when to clear the flag?). Well, if we 
> have to keep supporting that. If we only to be part in a single LRU 
> batch, a new flag could work and we could still allow isolating a folio 
> from LRU while in some LRU batch.

Yes, before adding a folio to LRU batch, check whether the folio has 
been added. Add the folio to LRU batch only if the folio has not been 
added.

> 
> If we could handle it using the existing flags, that would of course be 
> better (wondering if we could store more information in the existing 
> flags by using a different encoding for the different states).

If a folio contains more than one page, the folio will not be added to 
LRU batch. Can we use folio_test_large(folio) to filter?

if (!folio_test_large(folio) && drain_allow) {
	lru_add_drain_all();
	drain_allow = false;
}

> 
> The temporary clearing of the LRU flag we do right now tells me that 
> it's already not 100% reliable, so the question is how much more 
> unreliable we can make it before it would hurt :)
>