On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > >> On 10/27/2010 01:21 PM, Ying Han wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> kswapd's use case of hardware PTE accessed bit is to approximate page
> LRU.
> > >>>  The
> > >>> ActiveLRU demotion to InactiveLRU are not base on accessed bit, while
> it
> > >>> is only
> > >>> used to promote when a page is on inactive LRU list.  All of the
> state
> > >>> transitions
> > >>> are triggered by memory pressure and thus has weak relationship with
> > >>> respect to
> > >>> time.  In addition, hardware already transparently flush tlb whenever
> CPU
> > >>> context
> > >>> switch processes and given limited hardware TLB resource, the time
> period
> > >>> in
> > >>> which a page is accessed but not yet propagated to struct page is
> very
> > >>> small
> > >>> in practice. With the nature of approximation, kernel really don't
> need to
> > >>> flush TLB
> > >>> for changing PTE's access bit.  This commit removes the flush
> operation
> > >>> from it.
>
> It should at least add a comment there in page_referenced_one(), that
> a TLB flush ought to be done, but is now judged not worth the effort.
>

I will make the change here.

>
> (I'd expect architectures to differ on whether it's worth the effort.)
>

Right :)  I would like hear from upstream if the problem is general enough
to solve, and thus
we can plan put further effort into it.

> >>>
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ying Han<yinghan@google.com>
> > >>> Singed-off-by: Ken Chen<kenchen@google.com>
>
> Hey, Ken, switch off those curling tongs :)
>
> > However, it's a scary change -- higher chance of reclaiming a TLB covered
> page.
>
> Yes, I was often tempted to make such a change in the past;
> but ran away when it appeared to be in danger of losing the pte
> referenced bit of precisely the most intensively referenced pages.
>
> Ying's point (about what the pte referenced bit is being used for in our
> current implementation) is interesting, and might have tipped the balance;
> but that's not clear to me - and the flush is only done when mm is on CPU.
>

The initial patch is from Ken, and I am helping out here to get feedback
from
upstream and further improvement. :)

>
> > I had a vague memory of this problem biting someone when this flush
> wasn't
> > actually done properly... maybe powerpc.
> >
> > But anyway, same solution could be possible, by flushing every N pages
> scanned.
>
> Yes, batching seems safer.
>

I might be able to take a look at it.

--Ying

>
> Hugh