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 D02ACC433F5 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 14:01:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 7133E6B00B7; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 09:01:56 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6C1E86B00BB; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 09:01:56 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 58A6C6B00BD; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 09:01:56 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0215.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.215]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 484E16B00B7 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 09:01:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin11.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70A218197D34 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 14:01:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79065344190.11.E9CE8DE Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by imf21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3351C0068 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 14:01:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0950F1F38F; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 14:01:53 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1643032913; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/oVUfbULWzKcz6IcOUxqImvz1eec+zp5tb8htvYP5Ec=; b=R/mMkFSqw868tgKe1AOIrnmkM4oyJJLFOjbba51a4nt3TgAU/BJkSvVKkmOrGvvocrh8n+ M17ZEkJZHvJebplEMlHBbi0dE2qj9idOaVWhyNXHk2F8qviIV195vTWni2RHJuvMu6RqSy YRkRz+Wpl5M41zBhVtcMjxVgHAQFmJk= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EDEFA3B8D; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 14:01:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:01:47 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: Yu Zhao Cc: Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , Catalin Marinas , Dave Hansen , Hillf Danton , Jens Axboe , Jesse Barnes , Johannes Weiner , Jonathan Corbet , Matthew Wilcox , Mel Gorman , Michael Larabel , Rik van Riel , Vlastimil Babka , Will Deacon , Ying Huang , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, page-reclaim@google.com, x86@kernel.org, Konstantin Kharlamov Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/9] mm: multigenerational lru: aging Message-ID: References: <20220104202227.2903605-1-yuzhao@google.com> <20220104202227.2903605-7-yuzhao@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 6B3351C0068 X-Stat-Signature: zx8doqrz4rk7b9eq99am8tfssgu1q9ci Authentication-Results: imf21.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b="R/mMkFSq"; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass (imf21.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com X-HE-Tag: 1643032914-52318 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: On Sun 23-01-22 14:28:30, Yu Zhao wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:42:47AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 19-01-22 00:04:10, Yu Zhao wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 11:54:42AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Sun 09-01-22 21:47:57, Yu Zhao wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 03:44:50PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > On Tue 04-01-22 13:22:25, Yu Zhao wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > +static void walk_mm(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct mm_struct *mm, struct lru_gen_mm_walk *walk) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + static const struct mm_walk_ops mm_walk_ops = { > > > > > > > + .test_walk = should_skip_vma, > > > > > > > + .p4d_entry = walk_pud_range, > > > > > > > + }; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + int err; > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG > > > > > > > + struct mem_cgroup *memcg = lruvec_memcg(lruvec); > > > > > > > +#endif > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + walk->next_addr = FIRST_USER_ADDRESS; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + do { > > > > > > > + unsigned long start = walk->next_addr; > > > > > > > + unsigned long end = mm->highest_vm_end; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + err = -EBUSY; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + rcu_read_lock(); > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMCG > > > > > > > + if (memcg && atomic_read(&memcg->moving_account)) > > > > > > > + goto contended; > > > > > > > +#endif > > > > > > > + if (!mmap_read_trylock(mm)) > > > > > > > + goto contended; > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you evaluated the behavior under mmap_sem contention? I mean what > > > > > > would be an effect of some mms being excluded from the walk? This path > > > > > > is called from direct reclaim and we do allocate with exclusive mmap_sem > > > > > > IIRC and the trylock can fail in a presence of pending writer if I am > > > > > > not mistaken so even the read lock holder (e.g. an allocation from the #PF) > > > > > > can bypass the walk. > > > > > > > > > > You are right. Here it must be a trylock; otherwise it can deadlock. > > > > > > > > Yeah, this is clear. > > > > > > > > > I think there might be a misunderstanding: the aging doesn't > > > > > exclusively rely on page table walks to gather the accessed bit. It > > > > > prefers page table walks but it can also fallback to the rmap-based > > > > > function, i.e., lru_gen_look_around(), which only gathers the accessed > > > > > bit from at most 64 PTEs and therefore is less efficient. But it still > > > > > retains about 80% of the performance gains. > > > > > > > > I have to say that I really have hard time to understand the runtime > > > > behavior depending on that interaction. How does the reclaim behave when > > > > the virtual scan is enabled, partially enabled and almost completely > > > > disabled due to different constrains? I do not see any such an > > > > evaluation described in changelogs and I consider this to be a rather > > > > important information to judge the overall behavior. > > > > > > It doesn't have (partially) enabled/disabled states nor does its > > > behavior change with different reclaim constraints. Having either > > > would make its design too complex to implement or benchmark. > > > > Let me clarify. By "partially enabled" I really meant behavior depedning > > on runtime conditions. Say mmap_sem cannot be locked for half of scanned > > tasks and/or allocation for the mm walker fails due to lack of memory. > > How does this going to affect reclaim efficiency. > > Understood. This is not only possible -- it's the default for our ARM > hardware that doesn't support the accessed bit, i.e., CPUs that don't > automatically set the accessed bit. > > In try_to_inc_max_seq(), we have: > /* > * If the hardware doesn't automatically set the accessed bit, fallback > * to lru_gen_look_around(), which only clears the accessed bit in a > * handful of PTEs. Spreading the work out over a period of time usually > * is less efficient, but it avoids bursty page faults. > */ > if the accessed bit is not supported > return > > if alloc_mm_walk() fails > return > > walk_mm() > if mmap_sem contented > return > > scan page tables > > We have a microbenchmark that specifically measures this worst case > scenario by entirely disabling page table scanning. Its results showed > that this still retains more than 90% of the optimal performance. I'll > share this microbenchmark in another email when answering Barry's > questions regarding the accessed bit. > > Our profiling infra also indirectly confirms this: it collects data > from real users running on hardware with and without the accessed > bit. Users running on hardware without the accessed bit indeed suffer > a small performance degradation, compared with users running on > hardware with it. But they still benefit almost as much, compared with > users running on the same hardware but without MGLRU. This definitely a good information to have in the cover letter. > > How does a user/admin > > know that the memory reclaim is in a "degraded" mode because of the > > contention? > > As we previously discussed here: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/Ydu6fXg2FmrseQOn@google.com/ > there used to be a counter measuring the contention, and it was deemed > unnecessary and removed in v4. But I don't have a problem if we want > to revive it. Well, counter might be rather tricky but few trace points would make some sense to me. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs