Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] mm: Split move_pages_to_lru into 3 separate passes

Alexander Duyck
2020-08-19T14:42:41Z

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:58 AM Alex Shi <alex.shi-KPsoFbNs7GizrGE5bRqYAgC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> 在 2020/8/19 下午12:27, Alexander Duyck 写道:
> > From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
> >
> > The current code for move_pages_to_lru is meant to release the LRU lock
> > every time it encounters an unevictable page or a compound page that must
> > be freed. This results in a fair amount of code bulk because the lruvec has
> > to be reacquired every time the lock is released and reacquired.
> >
> > Instead of doing this I believe we can break the code up into 3 passes. The
> > first pass will identify the pages we can move to LRU and move those. In
> > addition it will sort the list out leaving the unevictable pages in the
> > list and moving those pages that have dropped to a reference count of 0 to
> > pages_to_free. The second pass will return the unevictable pages to the
> > LRU. The final pass will free any compound pages we have in the
> > pages_to_free list before we merge it back with the original list and
> > return from the function.
> >
> > The advantage of doing it this way is that we only have to release the lock
> > between pass 1 and 2, and then we reacquire the lock after pass 3 after we
> > merge the pages_to_free back into the original list. As such we only have
> > to release the lock at most once in an entire call instead of having to
> > test to see if we need to relock with each page.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>
> > ---
> > mm/vmscan.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > index 3ebe3f9b653b..6a2bdbc1a9eb 100644
> > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > @@ -1850,22 +1850,21 @@ static unsigned noinline_for_stack move_pages_to_lru(struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > {
> > int nr_pages, nr_moved = 0;
> > LIST_HEAD(pages_to_free);
> > - struct page *page;
> > - struct lruvec *orig_lruvec = lruvec;
> > + struct page *page, *next;
> > enum lru_list lru;
> >
> > - while (!list_empty(list)) {
> > - page = lru_to_page(list);
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(page, next, list, lru) {
> > VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageLRU(page), page);
> > - list_del(&page->lru);
> > - if (unlikely(!page_evictable(page))) {
> > - if (lruvec) {
> > - spin_unlock_irq(&lruvec->lru_lock);
> > - lruvec = NULL;
> > - }
> > - putback_lru_page(page);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * if page is unevictable leave it on the list to be returned
> > + * to the LRU after we have finished processing the other
> > + * entries in the list.
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely(!page_evictable(page)))
> > continue;
> > - }
> > +
> > + list_del(&page->lru);
> >
> > /*
> > * The SetPageLRU needs to be kept here for list intergrity.
> > @@ -1878,20 +1877,14 @@ static unsigned noinline_for_stack move_pages_to_lru(struct lruvec *lruvec,
> > * list_add(&page->lru,)
> > * list_add(&page->lru,)
> > */
> > - lruvec = relock_page_lruvec_irq(page, lruvec);
>
> It's actually changed the meaning from current func. which I had seen a bug if no relock.
> but after move to 5.9 kernel, I can not reprodce the bug any more. I am not sure if 5.9 fixed
> the problem, and we don't need relock here.

So I am not sure what you mean here about "changed the meaning from
the current func". Which function are you referring to and what
changed?

From what I can tell the pages cannot change memcg because they were
isolated and had the LRU flag stripped. They shouldn't be able to
change destination LRU vector as a result. Assuming that, then they
can all be processed under same LRU lock and we can avoid having to
release it until we are forced to do so to call putback_lru_page or
destroy the compound pages that were freed while we were shrinking the
LRU lists.

> For the rest of this patch.
> Reviewed-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi-KPsoFbNs7GizrGE5bRqYAgC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org>

Thanks for the review.

- Alex