Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v1 5/5] mm: multi-gen LRU: use mmu_notifier_test_clear_young()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 1:29 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:58 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 12:11 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > > > > > > As alluded to in patch 1, unless batching the walks even if KVM does _not_ support
> > > > > > > a lockless walk is somehow _worse_ than using the existing mmu_notifier_clear_flush_young(),
> > > > > > > I think batching the calls should be conditional only on LRU_GEN_SPTE_WALK.  Or
> > > > > > > if we want to avoid batching when there are no mmu_notifier listeners, probe
> > > > > > > mmu_notifiers.  But don't call into KVM directly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure I fully understand. Let's present the problem on the MM
> > > > > > side: assuming KVM supports lockless walks, batching can still be
> > > > > > worse (very unlikely), because GFNs can exhibit no memory locality at
> > > > > > all. So this option allows userspace to disable batching.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm asking the opposite.  Is there a scenario where batching+lock is worse than
> > > > > !batching+lock?  If not, then don't make batching depend on lockless walks.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, absolutely. batching+lock means we take/release mmu_lock for
> > > > every single PTE in the entire VA space -- each small batch contains
> > > > 64 PTEs but the entire batch is the whole KVM.
> > >
> > > Who is "we"?
> >
> > Oops -- shouldn't have used "we".
> >
> > > I don't see anything in the kernel that triggers walking the whole
> > > VMA, e.g. lru_gen_look_around() limits the walk to a single PMD.  I feel like I'm
> > > missing something...
> >
> > walk_mm() -> walk_pud_range() -> walk_pmd_range() -> walk_pte_range()
> > -> test_spte_young() -> mmu_notifier_test_clear_young().
> >
> > MGLRU takes two passes: during the first pass, it sweeps entire VA
> > space on each MM (per MM/KVM); during the second pass, it uses the rmap on each
> > folio (per folio).
>
> Ah.  IIUC, userspace can use LRU_GEN_SPTE_WALK to control whether or not to walk
> secondary MMUs, and the kernel further restricts LRU_GEN_SPTE_WALK to secondary
> MMUs that implement a lockless walk.  And if the answer is "no", secondary MMUs
> are simply not consulted.

Sorry for the bad naming -- probably LRU_GEN_SPTE_BATCH_WALK would be
less confusing.

MGLRU always consults the secondary MMU for each page it's going to
reclaim (during the second pass), i.e., it checks the A-bit in the
SPTE mapping a page (by the rmap) it plans to reclaim so that it won't
take a hot page away from KVM.

If the lockless walk is supported, MGLRU doesn't need to work at page
granularity: (physical) pages on the LRU list may have nothing in
common (e.g., from different processes), checking their PTEs/SPTEs one
by one is expensive. Instead, it sweeps the entire KVM spaces in the
first pass and checks the *adjacent SPTEs* of a page it plans to
reclaim in the second pass. Both rely on the *assumption* there would
be some spatial locality to exploit. This assumption can be wrong, and
LRU_GEN_SPTE_WALK disables it.

> If that's correct, then the proper way to handle this is by extending mmu_notifier_ops
> to query (a) if there's at least one register listeners that implements
> test_clear_young() and (b) if all registered listeners that implement test_clear_young()
> support lockless walks.  That avoids direct dependencies on KVM, and avoids making
> assumptions that may not always hold true, e.g. that KVM is the only mmu_notifier
> user that supports the young APIs.
>
> P.S. all of this info absolutely belongs in documentation and/or changelogs.

Will do.




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux