Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/lru_gen: Don't build multi-gen LRU page table walk code on architecture not supported

Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm/lru_gen: Don't build multi-gen LRU page table walk code on architecture not supported

[Yu Zhao]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 5:48 AM Aneesh Kumar K V
<aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/26/23 10:34 PM, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:52 AM Aneesh Kumar K V
> > <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/26/23 1:04 AM, Yu Zhao wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 8:54 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
> >>> <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Yu Zhao,
> >>>>
> >>>> "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Not all architecture supports hardware atomic updates of access bits. On
> >>>>> such an arch, we don't use page table walk to classify pages into
> >>>>> generations. Add a kernel config option and remove adding all the page
> >>>>> table walk code on such architecture.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No preformance change observed with mongodb ycsb test:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Patch details        Throughput(Ops/sec)
> >>>>> without patch         93278
> >>>>> With patch            93400
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Without patch:
> >>>>> $ size mm/vmscan.o
> >>>>>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
> >>>>>  112102   42721      40  154863   25cef mm/vmscan.o
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With patch
> >>>>>
> >>>>> $ size  mm/vmscan.o
> >>>>>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
> >>>>>  105430   41333      24  146787   23d63 mm/vmscan.o
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Any feedback on this patch? Can we look at merging this change?
> >>>
> >>> Just want to make sure I fully understand the motivation: are there
> >>> any other end goals besides reducing the footprint mentioned above?
> >>> E.g., preparing for HCA, etc. (My current understanding is that HCA
> >>> shouldn't care about it, since it's already runtime disabled if HCA
> >>> doesn't want to use it.)
> >>>
> >>
> >> My goal with this change was to remove all those dead code from getting complied
> >> in for ppc64.
> >
> > I see. But the first thing (lru_gen_add_folio()) you moved has nothing
> > to do with this goal, because it's still compiled after the entire
> > series.
> >
>
> Sure. will drop that change.
>
> >>> Also as explained offline, solely relying on folio_activate() in
> >>> lru_gen_look_around() can cause a measure regression on powerpc,
> >>> because
> >>> 1. PAGEVEC_SIZE is 15 whereas pglist_data->mm_walk.batched is
> >>> virtually unlimited.
> >>> 2. Once folio_activate() reaches that limit, it takes the LRU lock on
> >>> top of the PTL, which can be shared by multiple page tables on
> >>> powerpc.
> >>>
> >>> In fact, I think we try the opposite direction first, before arriving
> >>> at any conclusions, i.e.,
> >>>     #define arch_has_hw_pte_young() radix_enabled()
> >>
> >> The reason it is disabled on powerpc was that a reference bit update takes a pagefault
> >> on powerpc irrespective of the translation mode.
> >
> > This is not true.
> >
> > From "IBM POWER9 Processor User Manual":
> > https://openpowerfoundation.org/resources/ibmpower9usermanual/
> >
> >   4.10.14 Reference and Change Bits
> >   ...
> >   When performing HPT translation, the hardware performs the R and C
> > bit updates nonatomically.
> >   ...
> >
> > The radix case is more complex, and I'll leave it to you to interpret
> > what it means:
> >
> > From "Power ISA Version 3.0 B":
> > https://openpowerfoundation.org/specifications/isa/
> >
> >   5.7.12 Reference and Change Recording
> >   ...
> >   For Radix Tree translation, the Reference and Change bits are set atomically.
> >   ...
> >
>
> it is atomic in that software use ldarx/stdcx to update these bits. Hardware/core won't
> update this directly even though Nest can update this directly without taking a fault. So
> for all purpose we can assume that on radix R/C bit is updated by page fault handler.

Thanks. To me, it sounds like stating a function provided by h/w, not
a requirement for s/w. (IMO, the latter would be something like
"software must/should set the bits atomically.) But I'll take your
word for it.