Re: [PATCH v11 07/14] mm: multi-gen LRU: exploit locality in rmap

From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@linux.intel.com>,
	"Aneesh Kumar" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	"Hillf Danton" <hdanton@sina.com>, "Jens Axboe" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>,
	"Mel Gorman" <mgorman@suse.de>,
	"Michael Larabel" <Michael@michaellarabel.com>,
	"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	"Mike Rapoport" <rppt@kernel.org>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>, "Vlastimil Babka" <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	LAK <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Linux Doc Mailing List" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>,
	"Kernel Page Reclaim v2" <page-reclaim@google.com>,
	"Brian Geffon" <bgeffon@google.com>,
	"Jan Alexander Steffens" <heftig@archlinux.org>,
	"Oleksandr Natalenko" <oleksandr@natalenko.name>,
	"Steven Barrett" <steven@liquorix.net>,
	"Suleiman Souhlal" <suleiman@google.com>,
	"Daniel Byrne" <djbyrne@mtu.edu>,
	"Donald Carr" <d@chaos-reins.com>,
	"Holger Hoffstätte" <holger@applied-asynchrony.com>,
	"Konstantin Kharlamov" <Hi-Angel@yandex.ru>,
	"Shuang Zhai" <szhai2@cs.rochester.edu>,
	"Sofia Trinh" <sofia.trinh@edi.works>,
	"Vaibhav Jain" <vaibhav@linux.ibm.com>,
	huzhanyuan@oppo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 07/14] mm: multi-gen LRU: exploit locality in rmap
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:55:54 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOUHufZn5L_R7b_S3P9O+VoJC=EnY10e+xyFF7UqiGbLzzzqKg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGsJ_4yLCsJJvK5QkFOk_7UW72DRO7gWnd6wdn2TWzBrTmRjSg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 4:46 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 3:52 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 5:43 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Given we used to have a flush for clear pte young in LRU, right now we are
> > > moving to nop in almost all cases for the flush unless the address becomes
> > > young exactly after look_around and before ptep_clear_flush_young_notify.
> > > It means we are actually dropping flush. So the question is,  were we
> > > overcautious? we actually don't need the flush at all even without mglru?
> >
> > We stopped flushing the TLB on A bit clears on x86 back in 2014.
> >
> > See commit b13b1d2d8692 ("x86/mm: In the PTE swapout page reclaim case
> > clear the accessed bit instead of flushing the TLB").
>
> This is true for x86, RISC-V, powerpc and S390. but it is not true for
> most platforms.
>
> There was an attempt to do the same thing in arm64:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1793830.html
> but arm64 still sent a nosync tlbi and depent on a deferred to dsb :
> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1794484.html

Barry, you've already answered your own question.

Without commit 07509e10dcc7 arm64: pgtable: Fix pte_accessible():
   #define pte_accessible(mm, pte)        \
  -       (mm_tlb_flush_pending(mm) ? pte_present(pte) : pte_valid_young(pte))
  +       (mm_tlb_flush_pending(mm) ? pte_present(pte) : pte_valid(pte))

You missed all TLB flushes for PTEs that have gone through
ptep_test_and_clear_young() on the reclaim path. But most of the time,
you got away with it, only occasional app crashes:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAGsJ_4w6JjuG4rn2P=d974wBOUtXUUnaZKnx+-G6a8_mSROa+Q@mail.gmail.com/

Why?