On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 5:45 AM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 5:12 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We used to put a faulted file page in inactive, if we access it a > > > > > > > second time, it can be promoted > > > > > > > to active. then in recent years, we have also applied this to anon > > > > > > > pages while kernel adds > > > > > > > workingset protection for anon pages. so basically both anon and file > > > > > > > pages go into the inactive > > > > > > > list for the 1st time, if we access it for the second time, they go to > > > > > > > the active list. if we don't access > > > > > > > it any more, they are likely to be reclaimed as they are inactive. > > > > > > > we do have some special fastpath for code section, executable file > > > > > > > pages are kept on active list > > > > > > > as long as they are accessed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > so all of the above concerns are actually not that correct? > > > > > > > > > > > > They are valid concerns but I don't know any popular workloads that > > > > > > care about them. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Yu, > > > > > here we can get a workload in Kim's patchset while he added workingset > > > > > protection > > > > > for anon pages: > > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mm/cover/1581401993-20041-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx/ > > > > > > > > Thanks. I wouldn't call that a workload because it's not a real > > > > application. By popular workloads, I mean applications that the > > > > majority of people actually run on phones, in cloud, etc. > > > > > > > > > anon pages used to go to active rather than inactive, but kim's patchset > > > > > moved to use inactive first. then only after the anon page is accessed > > > > > second time, it can move to active. > > > > > > > > Yes. To clarify, the A-bit doesn't really mean the first or second > > > > access. It can be many accesses each time it's set. > > > > > > > > > "In current implementation, newly created or swap-in anonymous page is > > > > > > > > > > started on the active list. Growing the active list results in rebalancing > > > > > active/inactive list so old pages on the active list are demoted to the > > > > > inactive list. Hence, hot page on the active list isn't protected at all. > > > > > > > > > > Following is an example of this situation. > > > > > > > > > > Assume that 50 hot pages on active list and system can contain total > > > > > 100 pages. Numbers denote the number of pages on active/inactive > > > > > list (active | inactive). (h) stands for hot pages and (uo) stands for > > > > > used-once pages. > > > > > > > > > > 1. 50 hot pages on active list > > > > > 50(h) | 0 > > > > > > > > > > 2. workload: 50 newly created (used-once) pages > > > > > 50(uo) | 50(h) > > > > > > > > > > 3. workload: another 50 newly created (used-once) pages > > > > > 50(uo) | 50(uo), swap-out 50(h) > > > > > > > > > > As we can see, hot pages are swapped-out and it would cause swap-in later." > > > > > > > > > > Is MGLRU able to avoid the swap-out of the 50 hot pages? > > > > > > > > I think the real question is why the 50 hot pages can be moved to the > > > > inactive list. If they are really hot, the A-bit should protect them. > > > > > > This is a good question. > > > > > > I guess it is probably because the current lru is trying to maintain a balance > > > between the sizes of active and inactive lists. Thus, it can shrink active list > > > even though pages might be still "hot" but not the recently accessed ones. > > > > > > 1. 50 hot pages on active list > > > 50(h) | 0 > > > > > > 2. workload: 50 newly created (used-once) pages > > > 50(uo) | 50(h) > > > > > > 3. workload: another 50 newly created (used-once) pages > > > 50(uo) | 50(uo), swap-out 50(h) > > > > > > the old kernel without anon workingset protection put workload 2 on active, so > > > pushed 50 hot pages from active to inactive. workload 3 would further contribute > > > to evict the 50 hot pages. > > > > > > it seems mglru doesn't demote pages from the youngest generation to older > > > generation only in order to balance the list size? so mglru is probably safe > > > in these cases. > > > > > > I will run some tests mentioned in Kim's patchset and report the result to you > > > afterwards. > > > > > > > Hi Yu, > > I did find putting faulted pages to the youngest generation lead to some > > regression in the case ebizzy Kim's patchset mentioned while he tried > > to support workingset protection for anon pages. > > i did a little bit modification for rand_chunk() which is probably similar > > with the modifcation() Kim mentioned in his patchset. The modification > > can be found here: > > https://github.com/21cnbao/ltp/commit/7134413d747bfa9ef > > > > The test env is a x86 machine in which I have set memory size to 2.5GB and > > set zRAM to 2GB and disabled external disk swap. > > > > with the vanilla kernel: > > \time -v ./a.out -vv -t 4 -s 209715200 -S 200000 > > > > so we have 10 chunks and 4 threads, each trunk is 209715200(200MB) > > > > typical result: > > Command being timed: "./a.out -vv -t 4 -s 209715200 -S 200000" > > User time (seconds): 36.19 > > System time (seconds): 229.72 > > Percent of CPU this job got: 371% > > Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 1:11.59 > > Average shared text size (kbytes): 0 > > Average unshared data size (kbytes): 0 > > Average stack size (kbytes): 0 > > Average total size (kbytes): 0 > > Maximum resident set size (kbytes): 2166196 > > Average resident set size (kbytes): 0 > > Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 9990128 > > Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 33315945 > > Voluntary context switches: 59144 > > Involuntary context switches: 167754 > > Swaps: 0 > > File system inputs: 2760 > > File system outputs: 8 > > Socket messages sent: 0 > > Socket messages received: 0 > > Signals delivered: 0 > > Page size (bytes): 4096 > > Exit status: 0 > > > > with gen_lru and lru_gen/enabled=0x3: > > typical result: > > Command being timed: "./a.out -vv -t 4 -s 209715200 -S 200000" > > User time (seconds): 36.34 > > System time (seconds): 276.07 > > Percent of CPU this job got: 378% > > Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 1:22.46 > > **** 15% time + > > Average shared text size (kbytes): 0 > > Average unshared data size (kbytes): 0 > > Average stack size (kbytes): 0 > > Average total size (kbytes): 0 > > Maximum resident set size (kbytes): 2168120 > > Average resident set size (kbytes): 0 > > Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 13362810 > > ***** 30% page fault + > > Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 33394617 > > Voluntary context switches: 55216 > > Involuntary context switches: 137220 > > Swaps: 0 > > File system inputs: 4088 > > File system outputs: 8 > > Socket messages sent: 0 > > Socket messages received: 0 > > Signals delivered: 0 > > Page size (bytes): 4096 > > Exit status: 0 > > > > with gen_lru and lru_gen/enabled=0x7: > > typical result: > > Command being timed: "./a.out -vv -t 4 -s 209715200 -S 200000" > > User time (seconds): 36.13 > > System time (seconds): 251.71 > > Percent of CPU this job got: 378% > > Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 1:16.00 > > *****better than enabled=0x3, worse than vanilla > > Average shared text size (kbytes): 0 > > Average unshared data size (kbytes): 0 > > Average stack size (kbytes): 0 > > Average total size (kbytes): 0 > > Maximum resident set size (kbytes): 2120988 > > Average resident set size (kbytes): 0 > > Major (requiring I/O) page faults: 12706512 > > Minor (reclaiming a frame) page faults: 33422243 > > Voluntary context switches: 49485 > > Involuntary context switches: 126765 > > Swaps: 0 > > File system inputs: 2976 > > File system outputs: 8 > > Socket messages sent: 0 > > Socket messages received: 0 > > Signals delivered: 0 > > Page size (bytes): 4096 > > Exit status: 0 > > > > I can also reproduce the problem on arm64. > > > > I am not saying this is going to block mglru from being mainlined. But I am > > still curious if this is an issue worth being addressed somehow in mglru. > > You've missed something very important: *thoughput* :) > noop :-) in the test case, there are 4 threads. they are searching a key in 10 chunks of memory. for each chunk, the size is 200MB. a "random" chunk index is returned for those threads to search. but chunk2 is the hottest, and chunk3, 7, 4 are relatively hotter than others. static inline unsigned int rand_chunk(void) { /* simulate hot and cold chunk */ unsigned int rand[16] = {2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 2, 6, 7, 9, 2, 8, 3, 7, 2, 2, 4}; static int nr = 0; return rand[nr++%16]; } each thread does search_mem(): static unsigned int search_mem(void) { record_t key, *found; record_t *src, *copy; unsigned int chunk; size_t copy_size = chunk_size; unsigned int i; unsigned int state = 0; /* run 160 loops or till timeout */ for (i = 0; threads_go == 1 && i < 160; i++) { chunk = rand_chunk(); src = mem[chunk]; ... copy = alloc_mem(copy_size); ... memcpy(copy, src, copy_size); key = rand_num(copy_size / record_size, &state); bsearch(&key, copy, copy_size / record_size, record_size, compare); /* Below check is mainly for memory corruption or other bug */ if (found == NULL) { fprintf(stderr, "Couldn't find key %zd\n", key); exit(1); } } /* end if ! touch_pages */ free_mem(copy, copy_size); } return (i); } each thread picks up a chunk, then allocates a new memory and copies the chunk to the new allocated memory, and searches a key in the allocated memory. as i have set time to rather big by -S, so each thread actually exits while it completes 160 loops. $ \time -v ./ebizzy -t 4 -s $((200*1024*1024)) -S 6000000 so the one who finishes the whole jobs earlier wins in throughput as well. > Dollars to doughnuts there was a large increase in throughput -- I > haven't tried this benchmark but I've seen many reports similar to > this one. I have no doubt about this. I am just trying to figure out some potential we can further achieve in mglru. Thanks, Barry
