From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Michael Larabel <michael@michaellarabel.com>,
kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org,
linux-mm@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v1 5/5] mm: multi-gen LRU: use mmu_notifier_test_clear_young()
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 09:43:31 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y/elw7CTvVWt0Js6@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230217041230.2417228-6-yuzhao@google.com>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> An existing selftest can quickly demonstrate the effectiveness of this
> patch. On a generic workstation equipped with 128 CPUs and 256GB DRAM:
Not my area of maintenance, but a non-existent changelog (for all intents and
purposes) for a change of this size and complexity is not acceptable.
> $ sudo max_guest_memory_test -c 64 -m 250 -s 250
>
> MGLRU run2
> ---------------
> Before ~600s
> After ~50s
> Off ~250s
>
> kswapd (MGLRU before)
> 100.00% balance_pgdat
> 100.00% shrink_node
> 100.00% shrink_one
> 99.97% try_to_shrink_lruvec
> 99.06% evict_folios
> 97.41% shrink_folio_list
> 31.33% folio_referenced
> 31.06% rmap_walk_file
> 30.89% folio_referenced_one
> 20.83% __mmu_notifier_clear_flush_young
> 20.54% kvm_mmu_notifier_clear_flush_young
> => 19.34% _raw_write_lock
>
> kswapd (MGLRU after)
> 100.00% balance_pgdat
> 100.00% shrink_node
> 100.00% shrink_one
> 99.97% try_to_shrink_lruvec
> 99.51% evict_folios
> 71.70% shrink_folio_list
> 7.08% folio_referenced
> 6.78% rmap_walk_file
> 6.72% folio_referenced_one
> 5.60% lru_gen_look_around
> => 1.53% __mmu_notifier_test_clear_young
Do you happen to know how much of the improvement is due to batching, and how
much is due to using a walkless walk?
> @@ -5699,6 +5797,9 @@ static ssize_t show_enabled(struct kobject *kobj, struct kobj_attribute *attr, c
> if (arch_has_hw_nonleaf_pmd_young() && get_cap(LRU_GEN_NONLEAF_YOUNG))
> caps |= BIT(LRU_GEN_NONLEAF_YOUNG);
>
> + if (kvm_arch_has_test_clear_young() && get_cap(LRU_GEN_SPTE_WALK))
> + caps |= BIT(LRU_GEN_SPTE_WALK);
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-23 17:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-17 4:12 [PATCH mm-unstable v1 0/5] mm/kvm: lockless accessed bit harvest Yu Zhao
2023-02-17 4:12 ` [PATCH mm-unstable v1 1/5] mm/kvm: add mmu_notifier_test_clear_young() Yu Zhao
2023-02-23 17:13 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-23 17:40 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-23 21:12 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-23 17:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-17 4:12 ` [PATCH mm-unstable v1 2/5] kvm/x86: add kvm_arch_test_clear_young() Yu Zhao
2023-02-17 4:19 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-17 16:27 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-23 5:58 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-23 17:09 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-23 17:27 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-23 18:23 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-23 18:34 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-23 18:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-23 19:02 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-23 19:21 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-23 19:25 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-17 4:12 ` [PATCH mm-unstable v1 3/5] kvm/arm64: " Yu Zhao
2023-02-17 4:21 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-17 9:00 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-02-23 3:58 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-23 9:03 ` Marc Zyngier
2023-02-23 9:18 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-17 9:09 ` Oliver Upton
2023-02-17 16:00 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-23 5:25 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-23 4:43 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-17 4:12 ` [PATCH mm-unstable v1 4/5] kvm/powerpc: " Yu Zhao
2023-02-17 4:24 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-17 4:12 ` [PATCH mm-unstable v1 5/5] mm: multi-gen LRU: use mmu_notifier_test_clear_young() Yu Zhao
2023-02-23 17:43 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2023-02-23 18:08 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-23 19:11 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-23 19:36 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-23 19:58 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-23 20:09 ` Yu Zhao
2023-02-23 20:28 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-02-23 20:48 ` Yu Zhao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y/elw7CTvVWt0Js6@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@google.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=michael@michaellarabel.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yuzhao@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).