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 C9783C4829A for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 07:13:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2AA248D0011; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:13:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 233DB8D0001; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:13:59 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0AF148D0011; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:13:59 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EADCA8D0001 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:13:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C6261601B2 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 07:13:58 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 81789544956.24.1215073 Received: from mail-wm1-f52.google.com (mail-wm1-f52.google.com [209.85.128.52]) by imf05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94447100008 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2024 07:13:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf05.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20230601 header.b=KBlwozo+; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf05.hostedemail.com: domain of yuzhao@google.com designates 209.85.128.52 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=yuzhao@google.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1707894836; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=cG3ytfbapMF878eiJ7E0ok6bF7KZipG/SHOU0Ejqb2I=; b=ObFp8K1W5Q5zEgDl5Z2+WwrPfa2tySxdtmpRMLQQkrSKqconBLpBVuJoA7uttVCugEs54t Yhe6+7LEyW0TkBCYOEfz6EPE5RxwwiU5+aS8t/2/Wx7cyINX2BnzoJ3SnCE85rhV89LZh8 7mM7REILv1mPDRsv9WBAerS634v44z0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf05.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20230601 header.b=KBlwozo+; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf05.hostedemail.com: domain of yuzhao@google.com designates 209.85.128.52 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=yuzhao@google.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1707894836; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=g5sq+urJLevDZccc955lu53pvFskecKCbVxw/iyXxG2opg82qH9FisTlNDKmI4ZvWcNHyH mDmy8OllXdYGxA5ogGcLf97BDOwwTlqI7BoCDAfmjRvuPUJL5tEQ0UTpvvDRNQpJeg8Tdf tzEaIKZCtXczBjPXcAVbKB7VPfWu7kA= Received: by mail-wm1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-410acf9e776so111605e9.1 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:13:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1707894835; x=1708499635; darn=kvack.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=cG3ytfbapMF878eiJ7E0ok6bF7KZipG/SHOU0Ejqb2I=; b=KBlwozo+IoAf3ppAjOv1BV0OxfXxad/I7FJmqb22FBHJ0BpsL+x4DDjqQJQeyXJha2 yPe7D1pHLBQXD+LNQPPXcGfg18N4Iu0GV6yVE+Y2TYxDOoYF0jPfuLL+8RXnL9OPoaqE EBO6mN2GvCbg3nATBoGq0MsI2qA8ZULMOOnLnY2vboiy2LxkaPx7o7KYH3UKS6oShjQ5 I4jQE538R4sIrNTjJ3nu75DTVMJXDwTJxz90uz5JG0viyS96D1HZHheBYXuWCinktCfH 0wMPN6TII7PEESkYW1qKoPY08pc+ZMYSqVaeG+pa8N3SVoFRjpuLMhoZeI6np11kYfhi tNmw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1707894835; x=1708499635; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cG3ytfbapMF878eiJ7E0ok6bF7KZipG/SHOU0Ejqb2I=; b=dwg8JYbZ+vz80n29JEtTPLJCPUM3wSckELc2k1mI2AXoVYDit4yu3ecqksCzJrzWpp 5OasJ7i46FOGU35fvTdhVq6XeGcQFLnQviCtsuOREGh0ramOqkriTEycXJ3aahJP9uGq ZoxLS7PqWNofGwKkxQvKeetIgzzTMLx3Es3XnGdVTwMe3jVu+0s9lim3K/A+HkQPyG1h tHY0QzMlfXVRTPI3I+NW6Tfxa6hFD4Ahks9nhIw1av4Y1JdFSA1VOstoJ9hZwgegrVeH MHRon5Kp3VoRUpq+eqYtQH8maUunKwEzuu6+Ay+xaO/twBDvAWfEvI2Hgf8W1NGrzaIU sQBg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVA+UTECMYn7b4d6mEvRAAk6l7RMulmkhtqdcIaGgsJuRfCHYq0qvdWVFbrgWla5nOk4rLnmr+lZWhoZZDgReX+LFg= X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz6ulyvp8kpwzs91Ka6fqYNVpVNSpVC5FScT8BtvK2D4Xod0ras NDQLXlb3JzkVoz8Amg5ARwNr1PJpWXnMDkInmIwO24MHNjWVAmiBNoPqO+q3OjByPPkLV+wgjo/ YpAORZvUklIfw6Z9btBIzQaalgQEMgDh762T+ X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHxJaLI9oI+8cMXdNNVvYXm3CLXITKxWceNDGyG2O0yz3xlROb2tedM7AtNEhiCKwfIWus9ESEj1Br/DhGXHLk= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:a01a:b0:411:e72d:e5c9 with SMTP id jg26-20020a05600ca01a00b00411e72de5c9mr58714wmb.5.1707894834941; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 23:13:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240209115950.3885183-1-chengming.zhou@linux.dev> <20240209115950.3885183-2-chengming.zhou@linux.dev> In-Reply-To: <20240209115950.3885183-2-chengming.zhou@linux.dev> From: Yu Zhao Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 01:13:17 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/1] mm/swap: queue reclaimable folio to local rotate batch when !folio_test_lru() To: chengming.zhou@linux.dev Cc: willy@infradead.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, yosryahmed@google.com, nphamcs@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chengming Zhou Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 94447100008 X-Stat-Signature: emtkt93pe7j7rrheuhqmhoqqp9nmunma X-HE-Tag: 1707894836-281663 X-HE-Meta: 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 F7Eqi18R F/ZArh7SsDLj6kcvpTpQSNXwJuGvJ0/u5HACbyZ8gXNtG/JYB62R9RlEcZ8g/HJmJjz4PcvAFBKjtbp9uHkFfoInn4feurTogs0VG2jcvcFmRSMEzE2FQY9jJ7rEEOwkIeoUWheb2zbwlAZ9+87QE3iEVhF3B3XVlydpXhRKcbI2RP1Mz5tDN+VLX7TdOeuFm9trBQbl1t8W2Ooh5j/vGOOQrTn0uycSUe9Apd7fBANBDE3ADHarrs35C6YuGYLOU9t/YJfK9lUTgGyWTdAUI3S6ikowXWFDBdqeqH1BD/Brv1dAZzLw/U196GWt5VAnO+ceV34YQFZupUhZ6i7R0tdWVpTrYAe+g844kKti8eqNf4qSEOsfrxBYgqLp6R+85Ve3TQeoJxVuKNJIDrGjKvGeomkDYTzq1GfO3oCMaNdLDwGOHRsyMeDv2gPwgwJtn0+4xSH5q69T/LkQ= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000004, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:00=E2=80=AFAM wrote: > > From: Chengming Zhou > > All LRU move interfaces have a problem that it has no effect if the > folio is isolated from LRU (in cpu batch or isolated by shrinker). > Since it can't move/change folio LRU status when it's isolated, mostly > just clear the folio flag and do nothing in this case. > > In our case, a written back and reclaimable folio won't be rotated to > the tail of inactive list, since it's still in cpu lru_add batch. It > may cause the delayed reclaim of this folio and evict other folios. > > This patch changes to queue the reclaimable folio to cpu rotate batch > even when !folio_test_lru(), hoping it will likely be handled after > the lru_add batch which will put folio on the LRU list first, so > will be rotated to the tail successfully when handle rotate batch. > > Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou I don't think the analysis is correct. IIRC, writeback from non reclaim paths doesn't require isolation and the reclaim path doesn't use struct folio_batch lru_add. Did you see any performance improvements with this patch? In general, this kind of patches should have performance numbers to show it really helps (not just in theory). My guess is that you are hitting this problem [1]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20221116013808.3995280-1-yuzhao@google= .com/