On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 8:56 AM Chris Li wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 01:51:44AM +0800, Kairui Song wrote: > > > > mm/vmscan.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > > > > index 4f9c854ce6cc..03631cedb3ab 100644 > > > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > > > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > > > > @@ -3681,15 +3681,26 @@ static bool inc_min_seq(struct lruvec *lruvec, int type, bool can_swap) > > > > /* prevent cold/hot inversion if force_scan is true */ > > > > for (zone = 0; zone < MAX_NR_ZONES; zone++) { > > > > struct list_head *head = &lrugen->folios[old_gen][type][zone]; > > > > + struct folio *prev = NULL; > > > > > > > > - while (!list_empty(head)) { > > > > - struct folio *folio = lru_to_folio(head); > > > > + if (!list_empty(head)) > > > > + prev = lru_to_folio(head); > > > > + > > > > + while (prev) { > > > > + struct folio *folio = prev; > > > > > > > > VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(folio_test_unevictable(folio), folio); > > > > VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(folio_test_active(folio), folio); > > > > VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(folio_is_file_lru(folio) != type, folio); > > > > VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(folio_zonenum(folio) != zone, folio); > > > > > > > > + if (unlikely(list_is_first(&folio->lru, head))) { > > > > + prev = NULL; > > > > + } else { > > > > + prev = lru_to_folio(&folio->lru); > > > > + prefetchw(&prev->flags); > > > > + } > > > > > > This makes the code flow much harder to follow. Also for architecture > > > that does not support prefetch, this will be a net loss. > > > > > > Can you use refetchw_prev_lru_folio() instead? It will make the code > > > much easier to follow. It also turns into no-op when prefetch is not > > > supported. > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. > > > > Yes, that's doable, I made it this way because in previous series (V1 > > & V2) I applied the bulk move patch first which needed and introduced > > the `prev` variable here, so the prefetch logic just used it. > > For V3 I did a rebase and moved the prefetch commit to be the first > > one, since it seems to be the most effective one, and just kept the > > Maybe something like this? Totally not tested. Feel free to use it any way you want. > > Chris > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index 4f9c854ce6cc..2100e786ccc6 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -3684,6 +3684,7 @@ static bool inc_min_seq(struct lruvec *lruvec, int type, bool can_swap) > > while (!list_empty(head)) { > struct folio *folio = lru_to_folio(head); > + prefetchw_prev_lru_folio(folio, head, flags); > > VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(folio_test_unevictable(folio), folio); > VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(folio_test_active(folio), folio); > @@ -4346,7 +4347,10 @@ static int scan_folios(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct scan_control *sc, > > while (!list_empty(head)) { > struct folio *folio = lru_to_folio(head); > - int delta = folio_nr_pages(folio); > + int delta; > + > + prefetchw_prev_lru_folio(folio, head, flags); > + delta = folio_nr_pages(folio); > > VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(folio_test_unevictable(folio), folio); > VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_FOLIO(folio_test_active(folio), folio); > Thanks! Actually if benefits from 2/3 and 3/3 is trivial compared to the complexity and not appealing, then let's only keep the prefetch one, which will be just a one liner change with good result.