Re: [PATCH v10 06/14] mm: multi-gen LRU: minimal implementation

[Chen Wandun <chenwandun@huawei.com>]

在 2022/4/15 13:25, Yu Zhao 写道:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 10:23:18AM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote:
>> 在 2022/4/15 4:53, Yu Zhao 写道:
>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 07:47:54PM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote:
>>>> On 2022/4/7 11:15, Yu Zhao wrote:
>>>>> +static void inc_min_seq(struct lruvec *lruvec)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	int type;
>>>>> +	struct lru_gen_struct *lrugen = &lruvec->lrugen;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	VM_BUG_ON(!seq_is_valid(lruvec));
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	for (type = 0; type < ANON_AND_FILE; type++) {
>>>>> +		if (get_nr_gens(lruvec, type) != MAX_NR_GENS)
>>>>> +			continue;
>>>> I'm confused about relation between aging and LRU list operation.
>>>>
>>>> In function inc_max_seq,  both min_seq and max_seq will increase，
>>>> the lrugen->lists[] indexed by lru_gen_from_seq(max_seq + 1) may
>>>> be non-empty?
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> for example,
>>>> before inc_max_seq:
>>>> min_seq == 0, lrugen->lists[0][type][zone]
>>>> max_seq ==3, lrugen->lists[3][type][zone]
>>>>
>>>> after inc_max_seq:
>>>> min_seq ==1, lrugen->lists[1][type][zone]
>>>> max_seq ==4, lrugen->lists[0][type][zone]
>>>>
>>>> If lrugen->lists[0][type][zone] is not empty before inc_max_seq and it is
>>>> the most inactive list，however lurgen->lists[0][type][zone] will become
>>>> the most active list after inc_max_seq.
>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>> So,  in this place,
>>>>
>>>> if (get_nr_gens(lruvec, type) != MAX_NR_GENS)
>>>> 	continue;
>>>>
>>>> should change to
>>>>
>>>> if (get_nr_gens(lruvec, type) == MAX_NR_GENS)
>>>> 	continue;
>>> No, because max/min_seq will overlap if we do so.
>>>
>>> lrugen->lists[max_seq+1] can only be non-empty for anon LRU, for a
>>> couple of reasons:
>>> 1. We can't swap at all.
>>> 2. Swapping is constrained, e.g., swapfile is full.
>>>
>>> Both cases are similar to a producer (the aging) overrunning a
>>> consumer (the eviction). We used to handle them, but I simplified the
>>> code because I don't feel they are worth handling [1].
>> Can lrugen->lists[max_seq+1]  also be non-empty for file LRU？
> On reclaim path, no. But it can be forced to do so via debugfs.
>
>> such as in dont reclaim mapped file page case(isolation will fail).
> You mean may_unmap=false? Pages stays in the same generation if
> isolation fails. So lrugen->lists[min_seq] won't be empty in this
> case.
>
>> If so, after aging, eviction will reclaim memory start from
>> lrugen->lists[min_seq+1], but some oldest file page still
>> remain in lrugen->lists[max_seq+1].
>>
>> sort_folio can help to put misplaced pages to the right
>> LRU list, but in this case, it does't help, because sort_folio
>> only sort lrugen->lists[min_seq+1].
> On reclaim path, inc_max_seq() is only called when need_aging=true,
> and this guarantees max_seq-min_seq[LRU_GEN_FILE]+1 < MAX_NR_GENS.
yes, I think so, but I did't find the logical in function get_nr_evictable,
or am I missing something

         if (min_seq[LRU_GEN_FILE] + MIN_NR_GENS > max_seq)
                 *need_aging = true;
         else if (min_seq[LRU_GEN_FILE] + MIN_NR_GENS < max_seq)
                 *need_aging = false;
         else if (young * MIN_NR_GENS > total)
                 *need_aging = true;
         else if (old * (MIN_NR_GENS + 2) < total)
                 *need_aging = true;
         else
                 *need_aging = false;

Thanks
> .