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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3DBC10DCE for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:55:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F48206E2 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="Rt0ZY8y2" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E6F48206E2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9661E6B0008; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:55:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 8EF946B000A; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:55:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 7B7226B000C; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:55:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0153.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.153]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CDA06B0008 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:55:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin15.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F371C441C for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:55:13 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76591392948.15.crow17_2d95990058758 X-HE-Tag: crow17_2d95990058758 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 11372 Received: from mail-qk1-f196.google.com (mail-qk1-f196.google.com [209.85.222.196]) by imf41.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 19:55:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f196.google.com with SMTP id z25so9826034qkj.4 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:55:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=Hfzbt85s5dZWmMp/zqFOHofSsVERX/p3j2BI4mF1Kow=; b=Rt0ZY8y2poiOar+1ASETMVRsuXGGZwiwZJ0+/9P7+916QHLd1ikA7PgwHUd1s9zP5N H/JoeIE13uEeMa+8Ffoo+GUs+ZVOmZTdJ6NNuFtWClUFy1K5oUKX6Hk7kxkwmVHCXT1L WlOVqRJ+e5Ehr+b/eg03cqTD0kgkCoBh71VNSJfVK/BeY8yQb4xwpTdj1SSrNi2kpEhe PBPRyOB2X0HjCuXTJ37CxCIysJx8W4RQGFk9fOuKJM9LyCc+FM+eHt16Qmr6ddWnwIqF vsr2U4Z8vUnyVA9cgtjaYSoMWPf3ToKpJze60Kv9ad0r4sor0LUsOV1lznOS+MWEOM1Y H0Rg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to; bh=Hfzbt85s5dZWmMp/zqFOHofSsVERX/p3j2BI4mF1Kow=; b=lxEc1ySfP/dEGlHYjzvJPt8ED1uAWftRCYVUoKuUZKQ94gNuExFI1fFEKzucC1wGw2 Deu8h3S2t5uOwHSOLIai1rKLmDDOze6b37U1nnkIzbrBHMoaZkz0EytJNcJw9LydmVkg tVX7GufHLtWPXOjeZGIN5trYiXgcQ8RncuDo//7BTAZBe2lw7+/hxC/Vdl91egTAi4xd 1HYcLkPV5GubeYdqP7FOJjOT08dbfOiA7tk/NmjhLKY3rQjHG6GFEEqKQd5zS7DE4fXx e10Vr9fDEIx0Z2+JeWWGCEBTHd9UZz4A79woDmp4Noi7uJpPcYIwdQW76gih4GMl+KKv vYLg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1xF2LvqaiHBHbdzeryQdTipCEANYuTYhwtkrItwls9fqNW1x1y IPRTIghYeZNX3gzGmNbBI2mowQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsQ/9mXEjYK792ujrUNhDFdoZ1ykvsP/BfcltKM4tfvpcbRo1UblTXKwwT5sh0NdsUf499AGQ== X-Received: by 2002:a37:e10f:: with SMTP id c15mr14238676qkm.262.1584129312287; Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c091:480::d99c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p22sm6387314qki.124.2020.03.13.12.55.11 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 13 Mar 2020 12:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 15:55:10 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: Joonsoo Kim Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Memory Management List , LKML , Michal Hocko , Hugh Dickins , Minchan Kim , Vlastimil Babka , Mel Gorman , kernel-team@lge.com, Joonsoo Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] mm/vmscan: protect the workingset on anonymous LRU Message-ID: <20200313195510.GA67986@cmpxchg.org> References: <1582175513-22601-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <1582175513-22601-3-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> <20200312151423.GH29835@cmpxchg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 04:40:18PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > 2020=EB=85=84 3=EC=9B=94 13=EC=9D=BC (=EA=B8=88) =EC=98=A4=EC=A0=84 12:= 14, Johannes Weiner =EB=8B=98=EC=9D=B4 =EC=9E=91=EC=84= =B1: > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:11:46PM +0900, js1304@gmail.com wrote: > > > @@ -1010,8 +1010,15 @@ static enum page_references page_check_refer= ences(struct page *page, > > > return PAGEREF_RECLAIM; > > > > > > if (referenced_ptes) { > > > - if (PageSwapBacked(page)) > > > - return PAGEREF_ACTIVATE; > > > + if (PageSwapBacked(page)) { > > > + if (referenced_page) { > > > + ClearPageReferenced(page); > > > + return PAGEREF_ACTIVATE; > > > + } > > > > This looks odd to me. referenced_page =3D TestClearPageReferenced() > > above, so it's already be clear. Why clear it again? >=20 > Oops... it's just my fault. Will remove it. >=20 > > > + > > > + SetPageReferenced(page); > > > + return PAGEREF_KEEP; > > > + } > > > > The existing file code already does: > > > > SetPageReferenced(page); > > if (referenced_page || referenced_ptes > 1) > > return PAGEREF_ACTIVATE; > > if (vm_flags & VM_EXEC) > > return PAGEREF_ACTIVATE; > > return PAGEREF_KEEP; > > > > The differences are: > > > > 1) referenced_ptes > 1. We did this so that heavily shared file > > mappings are protected a bit better than others. Arguably the same > > could apply for anon pages when we put them on the inactive list. >=20 > Yes, these check should be included for anon. >=20 > > 2) vm_flags & VM_EXEC. This mostly doesn't apply to anon pages. The > > exception would be jit code pages, but if we put anon pages on the > > inactive list we should protect jit code the same way we protect file > > executables. >=20 > I'm not sure that this is necessary for anon page. From my understandin= g, > executable mapped file page is more precious than other mapped file pag= e > because this mapping is usually used by *multiple* thread and there is > no way to check it by MM. If anon JIT code has also such characteristic= , this > code should be included for anon, but, should be included separately. I= t > seems that it's beyond of this patch. The sharing is what the referenced_ptes > 1 check is for. The problem with executables is that when they are referenced, they get a *lot* of references compared to data pages. Think about an instruction stream and how many of those instructions result in data references. So when you see an executable page that is being accessed, it's likely being accessed at a high rate. They're much hotter, and that's why reference bits from VM_EXEC mappings carry more weight. IMO this applies to executable file and anon equally. > > Seems to me you don't need to add anything. Just remove the > > PageSwapBacked branch and apply equal treatment to both types. >=20 > I will rework the code if you agree with my opinion. >=20 > > > @@ -2056,6 +2063,15 @@ static void shrink_active_list(unsigned long= nr_to_scan, > > > } > > > } > > > > > > + /* > > > + * Now, newly created anonymous page isn't appened to= the > > > + * active list. We don't need to clear the reference = bit here. > > > + */ > > > + if (PageSwapBacked(page)) { > > > + ClearPageReferenced(page); > > > + goto deactivate; > > > + } > > > > I don't understand this. > > > > If you don't clear the pte references, you're leaving behind stale > > data. You already decide here that we consider the page referenced > > when it reaches the end of the inactive list, regardless of what > > happens in between. That makes the deactivation kind of useless. >=20 > My idea is that the pages newly appended to the inactive list, for exam= ple, > a newly allocated anon page or deactivated page, start at the same line= . > A newly allocated anon page would have a mapping (reference) so I > made this code to help for deactivated page to have a mapping (referenc= e). > I think that there is no reason to devalue the page accessed on active = list. I don't think that leads to desirable behavior, because it causes an age inversion between deactivated and freshly instantiated pages. We know the new page was referenced when it entered the head of the inactive list. However, the old page's reference could be much, much longer in the past. Hours ago. So when they both reach the end of the list, we treat them as equally hot even though the new page has been referenced very recently and the old page might be completely stale. Keep in mind that we only deactivate in the first place because the inactive list is struggling and we need to get rid of stale active pages. We're in a workingset transition and *should* be giving old pages the chance to move out quickly. > Before this patch is applied, all newly allocated anon page are started > at the active list so clearing the pte reference on deactivation is req= uired > to check the further access. However, it is not the case so I skip it h= ere. >=20 > > And it blurs the lines between the inactive and active list. > > > > shrink_page_list() (and page_check_references()) are written with the > > notion that any references they look at are from the inactive list. I= f > > you carry over stale data, this can cause more subtle bugs later on. >=20 > It's not. For file page, PageReferenced() is maintained even if deactiv= ation > happens and it means one reference. shrink_page_list() doesn't honor PageReferenced as a reference. PG_referenced is primarily for the mark_page_accessed() state machine, which is different from the reclaim scanner's reference tracking: for unmapped pages we can detect accesses in realtime and don't need the reference sampling from LRU cycle to LRU cycle. The bit carries over a deactivation, but it doesn't prevent reclaim from freeing the page. For mapped pages, we sample references using the LRU cycles, and PG_referenced is otherwise unused. We repurpose it to implement second-chance tracking of inactive pages with pte refs. It counts inactive list cycles, not references. > > And again, I don't quite understand why anon would need different > > treatment here than file. >=20 > In order to preserve the current behaviour for the file page, I leave t= he code > as is for the file page and change the code for the anon page. There is > fundamental difference between them such as how referenced is checked, > accessed by mapping and accessed by syscall. I think that some differen= ce > would be admitted. Right, unmapped pages have their own reference tracking system because they can be detected synchronously. My questions center around this: We have an existing sampling algorithm for the coarse-grained page table referenced bit, where we start pages on inactive, treat references a certain way, target a certain inactive:active ratio, use refault information to detect workingset transitions etc. Anon used a different system in the past, but your patch set switches it over to the more universal model we have developed for mapped file pages. However, you don't switch it over to this exact model we have for mapped files, but rather a slightly modified version. And I don't quite understand the rationale behind the individual modifications. So let me turn it around. What would be the downsides of aging mapped anon exactly the same way we age mapped files? Can we identify where differences are necessary and document them?