Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v1 5/5] mm: multi-gen LRU: use mmu_notifier_test_clear_young()

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:58 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:11 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > > > > > As alluded to in patch 1, unless batching the walks even if KVM does _not_ support
> > > > > > a lockless walk is somehow _worse_ than using the existing mmu_notifier_clear_flush_young(),
> > > > > > I think batching the calls should be conditional only on LRU_GEN_SPTE_WALK.  Or
> > > > > > if we want to avoid batching when there are no mmu_notifier listeners, probe
> > > > > > mmu_notifiers.  But don't call into KVM directly.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure I fully understand. Let's present the problem on the MM
> > > > > side: assuming KVM supports lockless walks, batching can still be
> > > > > worse (very unlikely), because GFNs can exhibit no memory locality at
> > > > > all. So this option allows userspace to disable batching.
> > > >
> > > > I'm asking the opposite.  Is there a scenario where batching+lock is worse than
> > > > !batching+lock?  If not, then don't make batching depend on lockless walks.
> > >
> > > Yes, absolutely. batching+lock means we take/release mmu_lock for
> > > every single PTE in the entire VA space -- each small batch contains
> > > 64 PTEs but the entire batch is the whole KVM.
> >
> > Who is "we"?
> 
> Oops -- shouldn't have used "we".
> 
> > I don't see anything in the kernel that triggers walking the whole
> > VMA, e.g. lru_gen_look_around() limits the walk to a single PMD.  I feel like I'm
> > missing something...
> 
> walk_mm() -> walk_pud_range() -> walk_pmd_range() -> walk_pte_range()
> -> test_spte_young() -> mmu_notifier_test_clear_young().
> 
> MGLRU takes two passes: during the first pass, it sweeps entire VA
> space on each MM (per MM/KVM); during the second pass, it uses the rmap on each
> folio (per folio).

Ah.  IIUC, userspace can use LRU_GEN_SPTE_WALK to control whether or not to walk
secondary MMUs, and the kernel further restricts LRU_GEN_SPTE_WALK to secondary
MMUs that implement a lockless walk.  And if the answer is "no", secondary MMUs
are simply not consulted.

If that's correct, then the proper way to handle this is by extending mmu_notifier_ops
to query (a) if there's at least one register listeners that implements
test_clear_young() and (b) if all registered listeners that implement test_clear_young()
support lockless walks.  That avoids direct dependencies on KVM, and avoids making
assumptions that may not always hold true, e.g. that KVM is the only mmu_notifier
user that supports the young APIs.

P.S. all of this info absolutely belongs in documentation and/or changelogs.