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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3141AC433E1 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 03:01:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BCE208B3 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 03:01:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F0BCE208B3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.alibaba.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 59BCA6B0003; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:01:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 524956B0005; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:01:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 3EC986B0006; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:01:26 -0400 (EDT) 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 24D676B0003 for ; Sun, 19 Jul 2020 23:01:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin30.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C7DC1848895A for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 03:01:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77056953330.30.rate01_1a09e4e26f21 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5400D1801ACAF for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 03:01:25 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: rate01_1a09e4e26f21 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3258 Received: from out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.132]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2020 03:01:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Alimail-AntiSpam:AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R951e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e07488;MF=alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=18;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0U3AgGSF_1595214071; Received: from IT-FVFX43SYHV2H.local(mailfrom:alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0U3AgGSF_1595214071) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:01:12 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 00/22] per memcg lru_lock To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Alexander Duyck , Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Daniel Jordan , Yang Shi , Matthew Wilcox , Johannes Weiner , kbuild test robot , linux-mm , LKML , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Shakeel Butt , Joonsoo Kim , Wei Yang , "Kirill A. Shutemov" References: <1594429136-20002-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <57c619e7-da7e-198e-3de8-530bf19b9450@linux.alibaba.com> From: Alex Shi Message-ID: <5f2401d3-dd4f-cbc6-8cb4-4e92fc64998c@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:01:10 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5400D1801ACAF X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 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: =E5=9C=A8 2020/7/19 =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=8811:23, Hugh Dickins =E5=86=99=E9=81= =93: > I noticed that 5.8-rc5, with lrulock v16 applied, took significantly > longer to run loads than without it applied, when there should have bee= n > only slight differences in system time. Comparing /proc/vmstat, somethi= ng > that stood out was "pgrotated 0" for the patched kernels, which led her= e: >=20 > If pagevec_lru_move_fn() is now to TestClearPageLRU (I have still not > decided whether that's good or not, but assume here that it is good), > then functions called though it must be changed not to expect PageLRU! >=20 > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins Good catch! Thanks a lot, Hugh!=20 except 6 changes should apply, looks we add one more in swap.c file to st= op !PageRLU further actions! Many Thanks! Alex @@ -649,7 +647,7 @@ void deactivate_file_page(struct page *page) * In a workload with many unevictable page such as mprotect, * unevictable page deactivation for accelerating reclaim is poin= tless. */ - if (PageUnevictable(page)) + if (PageUnevictable(page) || !PageLRU(page)) return; if (likely(get_page_unless_zero(page))) {