linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	openrisc@lists.librecores.org,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25] mm: Page fault accounting cleanups
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 17:03:12 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200616210312.GF11838@xz-x1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wiTjaXHu+uxMi0xCZQOm4KVr0MucECAK=Zm4p4YZZ1XEg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:55:17AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 3:16 PM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > This series tries to address all of them by introducing mm_fault_accounting()
> > first, so that we move all the page fault accounting into the common code base,
> > then call it properly from arch pf handlers just like handle_mm_fault().
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> So having looked at this a bit more, I'd actually like to go even
> further, and just get rid of the per-architecture code _entirely_.
> 
> Here's a straw-man patch to the generic code - the idea is mostly laid
> out in the comment that I'm just quoting here directly too:
> 
>         /*
>          * Do accounting in the common code, to avoid unnecessary
>          * architecture differences or duplicated code.
>          *
>          * We arbitrarily make the rules be:
>          *
>          *  - faults that never even got here (because the address
>          *    wasn't valid). That includes arch_vma_access_permitted()
>          *    failing above.
>          *
>          *    So this is expressly not a "this many hardware page
>          *    faults" counter. Use the hw profiling for that.
>          *
>          *  - incomplete faults (ie RETRY) do not count (see above).
>          *    They will only count once completed.
>          *
>          *  - the fault counts as a "major" fault when the final
>          *    successful fault is VM_FAULT_MAJOR, or if it was a
>          *    retry (which implies that we couldn't handle it
>          *    immediately previously).
>          *
>          *  - if the fault is done for GUP, regs wil be NULL and
>          *    no accounting will be done (but you _could_ pass in
>          *    your own regs and it would be accounted to the thread
>          *    doing the fault, not to the target!)
>          */
> 
> the code itself in the patch is
> 
>  (a) pretty trivial and self-evident
> 
>  (b) INCOMPLETE
> 
> that (b) is worth noting: this patch won't compile on its own. It
> intentionally leaves all the users without the new 'regs' argument,
> because you obviously simply need to remove all the code that
> currently tries to do any accounting.
> 
> Comments?

Looks clean to me.  The definition of "major faults" will slightly change even
for those who has done the "major |= fault & MAJOR" operations before, but at
least I can't see anything bad about that either...

To make things easier, we can use the 1st patch to introduce this change,
however pass regs==NULL at the callers to never trigger this accounting.  Then
we can still use one patch for each arch to do the final convertions.

> 
> This is a bigger change, but I think it might be worth it to _really_
> consolidate the major/minor logic.
> 
> One detail worth noting: I do wonder if we should put the
> 
>     perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, addr);
> 
> just in the arch code at the top of the fault handling, and consider
> it entirely unrelated to the major/minor fault handling. The
> major/minor faults fundamnetally are about successes. But the plain
> PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS could be about things that fail, including
> things that never even get to this point at all.
> 
> I'm not convinced it's useful to have three SW events that are defined
> to be A=B+C.

IMHO it's still common to have a "total" statistics in softwares even if each
of the subsets are accounted separately.  Here it's just a bit special because
there're only two elements so the addition is so straightforward.  It seems a
trade-off on whether we'd like to do the accounting of errornous faults, or we
want to make it cleaner by put them altogether but only successful page faults.
I slightly preferred the latter due to the fact that I failed to find great
usefulness out of keeping error fault accountings, but no strong opinions..

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu


  reply	other threads:[~2020-06-16 21:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-15 22:15 Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 01/25] mm/um: Fix extra accounting for page fault retries Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 02/25] mm: Introduce mm_fault_accounting() Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:32   ` Linus Torvalds
2020-06-15 23:19     ` Peter Xu
2020-06-16 19:00       ` Andrew Morton
2020-06-17 16:26         ` Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 03/25] mm/alpha: Use mm_fault_accounting() Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 04/25] mm/arc: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 05/25] mm/arm: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 06/25] mm/arm64: " Peter Xu
2020-06-16  7:43   ` Will Deacon
2020-06-16 15:59     ` Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 07/25] mm/csky: " Peter Xu
2020-06-17  7:04   ` Guo Ren
2020-06-17 15:49     ` Peter Xu
2020-06-17 17:53       ` Linus Torvalds
2020-06-17 19:58         ` Peter Xu
2020-06-17 20:15           ` Linus Torvalds
2020-06-18 14:38             ` Peter Xu
2020-06-18 17:15               ` Linus Torvalds
2020-06-18 21:24                 ` Peter Xu
2020-06-18 22:28                   ` Peter Xu
2020-06-18 22:59                     ` Linus Torvalds
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 08/25] mm/hexagon: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 09/25] mm/ia64: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 10/25] mm/m68k: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 11/25] mm/microblaze: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 12/25] mm/mips: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 13/25] mm/nds32: " Peter Xu
2020-06-17  1:05   ` Greentime Hu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 14/25] mm/nios2: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 15/25] mm/openrisc: " Peter Xu
2020-06-16 18:11   ` Stafford Horne
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 16/25] mm/parisc: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:15 ` [PATCH 17/25] mm/powerpc: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:16 ` [PATCH 18/25] mm/riscv: " Peter Xu
2020-06-18 23:49   ` Palmer Dabbelt
2020-06-19  0:12     ` Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:23 ` [PATCH 19/25] mm/s390: " Peter Xu
2020-06-16 15:59   ` Alexander Gordeev
2020-06-16 16:35     ` Peter Xu
2020-06-17  6:19       ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-06-17 16:06         ` Peter Xu
2020-06-17 16:14           ` Christian Borntraeger
2020-06-17 16:44             ` Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:23 ` [PATCH 20/25] mm/sh: " Peter Xu
2020-07-20 21:25   ` Rich Felker
2020-07-20 22:05     ` Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:23 ` [PATCH 21/25] mm/sparc32: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:23 ` [PATCH 22/25] mm/sparc64: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:23 ` [PATCH 23/25] mm/unicore32: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:23 ` [PATCH 24/25] mm/x86: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 22:23 ` [PATCH 25/25] mm/xtensa: " Peter Xu
2020-06-15 23:13   ` Max Filippov
2020-06-16 18:55 ` [PATCH 00/25] mm: Page fault accounting cleanups Linus Torvalds
2020-06-16 21:03   ` Peter Xu [this message]
2020-06-17  0:55   ` Michael Ellerman
2020-06-17  8:04     ` Will Deacon
2020-06-17 16:10       ` Peter Xu

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=20200616210312.GF11838@xz-x1 \
    --to=peterx@redhat.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=gerald.schaefer@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=openrisc@lists.librecores.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 00/25] mm: Page fault accounting cleanups' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
on how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox