Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:27:24 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: migrate: record the mlocked page status to remove unnecessary lru drain | From | Baolin Wang <> |
| |
On 10/20/2023 10:54 AM, Yin, Fengwei wrote: > > > On 10/20/2023 10:45 AM, Baolin Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 10/20/2023 10:30 AM, Yin, Fengwei wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10/20/2023 10:09 AM, Baolin Wang wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/19/2023 8:07 PM, Yin, Fengwei wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/19/2023 4:51 PM, Baolin Wang wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/19/2023 4:22 PM, Yin Fengwei wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Baolin, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/19/23 15:25, Baolin Wang wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/19/2023 2:09 PM, Huang, Ying wrote: >>>>>>>>> Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 18 Oct 2023, at 9:04, Baolin Wang wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When doing compaction, I found the lru_add_drain() is an obvious hotspot >>>>>>>>>>> when migrating pages. The distribution of this hotspot is as follows: >>>>>>>>>>> - 18.75% compact_zone >>>>>>>>>>> - 17.39% migrate_pages >>>>>>>>>>> - 13.79% migrate_pages_batch >>>>>>>>>>> - 11.66% migrate_folio_move >>>>>>>>>>> - 7.02% lru_add_drain >>>>>>>>>>> + 7.02% lru_add_drain_cpu >>>>>>>>>>> + 3.00% move_to_new_folio >>>>>>>>>>> 1.23% rmap_walk >>>>>>>>>>> + 1.92% migrate_folio_unmap >>>>>>>>>>> + 3.20% migrate_pages_sync >>>>>>>>>>> + 0.90% isolate_migratepages >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The lru_add_drain() was added by commit c3096e6782b7 ("mm/migrate: >>>>>>>>>>> __unmap_and_move() push good newpage to LRU") to drain the newpage to LRU >>>>>>>>>>> immediately, to help to build up the correct newpage->mlock_count in >>>>>>>>>>> remove_migration_ptes() for mlocked pages. However, if there are no mlocked >>>>>>>>>>> pages are migrating, then we can avoid this lru drain operation, especailly >>>>>>>>>>> for the heavy concurrent scenarios. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> lru_add_drain() is also used to drain pages out of folio_batch. Pages in folio_batch >>>>>>>>>> have an additional pin to prevent migration. See folio_get(folio); in folio_add_lru(). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> lru_add_drain() is called after the page reference count checking in >>>>>>>>> move_to_new_folio(). So, I don't this is an issue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Agree. The purpose of adding lru_add_drain() is to address the 'mlock_count' issue for mlocked pages. Please see commit c3096e6782b7 and related comments. Moreover I haven't seen an increase in the number of page migration failures due to page reference count checking after this patch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with your. My understanding also is that the lru_add_drain() is only needed >>>>>>> for mlocked folio to correct mlock_count. Like to hear the confirmation from Huge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I have question: why do we need use page_was_mlocked instead of check >>>>>>> folio_test_mlocked(src)? Does page migration clear the mlock flag? Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, please see the call trace: try_to_migrate_one() ---> page_remove_rmap() ---> munlock_vma_folio(). >>>>> >>>>> Yes. This will clear mlock bit. >>>>> >>>>> What about set dst folio mlocked if source is before try_to_migrate_one()? And >>>>> then check whether dst folio is mlocked after? And need clear mlocked if migration >>>>> fails. I suppose the change is minor. Just a thought. Thanks. >>>> >>>> IMO, this will break the mlock related statistics in mlock_folio() when the remove_migration_pte() rebuilds the mlock status and mlock count. >>>> >>>> Another concern I can see is that, during the page migration, a concurrent munlock() can be called to clean the VM_LOCKED flags for the VMAs, so the remove_migration_pte() should not rebuild the mlock status and mlock count. But the dst folio's mlcoked status is still remained, which is wrong. >>>> >>>> So your suggested apporach seems not easy, and I think my patch is simple with re-using existing __migrate_folio_record() and __migrate_folio_extract() :) >>> >>> Can these concerns be addressed by clear dst mlocked after lru_add_drain() but before >>> remove_migration_pte()? >> >> IMHO, that seems too hacky to me. I still prefer to rely on the migration process of the mlcock pages. > > BTW, Yosry tried to address the overlap of field lru and mlock_count: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230618065719.1363271-1-yosryahmed@google.com/ > But the lore doesn't group all the patches.
Thanks for the information. I'd like to review and test if this work can continue.
| |