From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25] mm: Page fault accounting cleanups
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 10:55:14 +1000
Message-ID: <87imfqecjx.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
References: <20200615221607.7764-1-peterx@redhat.com> <CAHk-=wiTjaXHu+uxMi0xCZQOm4KVr0MucECAK=Zm4p4YZZ1XEg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46574 "EHLO
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1725894AbgFQAyw (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:54:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiTjaXHu+uxMi0xCZQOm4KVr0MucECAK=Zm4p4YZZ1XEg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, openrisc@lists.librecores.org, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>, linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:16 PM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>> This series tries to address all of them by introducing mm_fault_accounting()
>> first, so that we move all the page fault accounting into the common code base,
>> then call it properly from arch pf handlers just like handle_mm_fault().
>
> Hmm.
>
> So having looked at this a bit more, I'd actually like to go even
> further, and just get rid of the per-architecture code _entirely_.

<snip>

> One detail worth noting: I do wonder if we should put the
>
>     perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, addr);
>
> just in the arch code at the top of the fault handling, and consider
> it entirely unrelated to the major/minor fault handling. The
> major/minor faults fundamnetally are about successes. But the plain
> PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS could be about things that fail, including
> things that never even get to this point at all.

Yeah I think we should keep it in the arch code at roughly the top.

If it's moved to the end you could have a process spinning taking bad
page faults (and fixing them up), and see no sign of it from the perf
page fault counters.

cheers