From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C552C433EF for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:05:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id A86A76B0089; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:05:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A0CD66B0087; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:05:46 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 8AE3C6B0089; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:05:46 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0049.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.49]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB316B0085 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:05:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin07.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 383998248D52 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:05:46 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79018481892.07.4DD4C8F Received: from slate.cs.rochester.edu (slate.cs.rochester.edu [128.151.167.14]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 79EE9120016 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:05:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from node1x10a.cs.rochester.edu (node1x10a.cs.rochester.edu [192.5.53.74]) by slate.cs.rochester.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 20BG55iO020545 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:05:05 -0500 Received: from node1x10a.cs.rochester.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by node1x10a.cs.rochester.edu (8.15.2/8.15.1) with ESMTP id 20BG55J9002813; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:05:05 -0500 Received: (from szhai2@localhost) by node1x10a.cs.rochester.edu (8.15.2/8.15.1/Submit) id 20BG4vuZ002812; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:04:57 -0500 From: Shuang Zhai To: yuzhao@google.com Cc: Michael@michaellarabel.com, ak@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, axboe@kernel.dk, bgeffon@google.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, corbet@lwn.net, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, djbyrne@mtu.edu, hannes@cmpxchg.org, hdanton@sina.com, heftig@archlinux.org, holger@applied-asynchrony.com, jsbarnes@google.com, kernel@xanmod.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mgorman@suse.de, mhocko@kernel.org, page-reclaim@google.com, riel@surriel.com, sofia.trinh@edi.works, steven@liquorix.net, suleiman@google.com, szhai2@cs.rochester.edu, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz, will@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, x86@kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] Multigenerational LRU Framework Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 11:04:55 -0500 Message-Id: <20220111160455.2773-1-szhai2@cs.rochester.edu> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.21.3 In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 79EE9120016 X-Stat-Signature: qcuwz4h1w4m8qxodmkya88mt78i8kjoo Authentication-Results: imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=none (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of szhai2@cs.rochester.edu has no SPF policy when checking 128.151.167.14) smtp.mailfrom=szhai2@cs.rochester.edu; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=rochester.edu (policy=none) X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-HE-Tag: 1641917145-358470 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: Yu Zhao wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 01:30:00PM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 01:22:19PM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote: >>> TLDR >>> =3D=3D=3D=3D >>> The current page reclaim is too expensive in terms of CPU usage and i= t >>> often makes poor choices about what to evict. This patchset offers an >>> alternative solution that is performant, versatile and >>> straightforward. >> >> >> >>> Summery >>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>> The facts are: >>> 1. The independent lab results and the real-world applications >>> indicate substantial improvements; there are no known regressions= . >>> 2. Thrashing prevention, working set estimation and proactive reclaim >>> work out of the box; there are no equivalent solutions. >>> 3. There is a lot of new code; nobody has demonstrated smaller change= s >>> with similar effects. >>> >>> Our options, accordingly, are: >>> 1. Given the amount of evidence, the reported improvements will likel= y >>> materialize for a wide range of workloads. >>> 2. Gauging the interest from the past discussions [14][15][16], the >>> new features will likely be put to use for both personal computer= s >>> and data centers. >>> 3. Based on Google's track record, the new code will likely be well >>> maintained in the long term. It'd be more difficult if not >>> impossible to achieve similar effects on top of the existing >>> design. >> >> Hi Andrew, Linus, >> >> Can you please take a look at this patchset and let me know if it's >> 5.17 material? >> >> My goal is to get it merged asap so that users can reap the benefits >> and I can push the sequels. Please examine the data provided -- I >> think the unprecedented coverage and the magnitude of the improvements >> warrant a green light. >=20 > Downstream kernel maintainers who have been carrying MGLRU for more tha= n > 3 versions, can you please provide your Acked-by tags? >=20 > Having this patchset in the mainline will make your job easier :) >=20 > Alexandre - the XanMod Kernel maintainer > https://xanmod.org > =20 > Brian - the Chrome OS kernel memory maintainer > https://www.chromium.org > =20 > Jan - the Arch Linux Zen kernel maintainer > https://archlinux.org > =20 > Steven - the Liquorix kernel maintainer > https://liquorix.net > =20 > Suleiman - the ARCVM (Android downstream) kernel memory maintainer > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_part= y/kernel >=20 > Also my gratitude to those who have helped test MGLRU: >=20 > Daniel - researcher at Michigan Tech > benchmarked memcached > =20 > Holger - who has been testing/patching/contributing to various > subsystems since ~2008 > =20 > Shuang - researcher at University of Rochester > benchmarked fio and provided a report > =20 > Sofia - EDI https://www.edi.works > benchmarked the top eight memory hogs and provided reports >=20 > Can you please provide your Tested-by tags? This will ensure the credit > for your contributions. >=20 > Thanks! I have tested MGLRU using fio [1]. The performance improvement is fabulou= s. I hope this patchset could eventually get merged to enable large scale te= st and let more users talk about their experience. Tested-by: Shuang Zhai [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220105024423.26409-1-szhai2@cs.rochest= er.edu/