On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 2:45 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 9:20 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 1:47 AM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> > > > +static bool drain_evictable(struct lruvec *lruvec)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int gen, type, zone;
> > > > + int remaining = MAX_LRU_BATCH;
> > > > +
> > > > + for_each_gen_type_zone(gen, type, zone) {
> > > > + struct list_head *head = &lruvec->lrugen.lists[gen][type][zone];
> > > > +
> > > > + while (!list_empty(head)) {
> > > > + bool success;
> > > > + struct folio *folio = lru_to_folio(head);
> > > > +
> > > > + VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_unevictable(folio), folio);
> > > > + VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_active(folio), folio);
> > > > + VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_is_file_lru(folio) != type, folio);
> > > > + VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(folio_zonenum(folio) != zone, folio);
> > > > +
> > > > + success = lru_gen_del_folio(lruvec, folio, false);
> > > > + VM_BUG_ON(!success);
> > > > + lruvec_add_folio(lruvec, folio);
> > >
> > > for example, max_seq=4(GEN=0) and max_seq-1=3, then we are supposed to put
> > > max_seq in the head of active list. but your code seems to be putting max_seq-1
> > > after putting max_seq, then max_seq is more likely to be evicted
> > > afterwards as it
> > > is in the tail of the active list.
> >
> > This is correct.
>
> maybe something like below can fix it:
> #define for_each_gen_type_zone(gen, type, zone)
> \
> - for ((gen) = 0; (gen) < MAX_NR_GENS; (gen)++) \
> + for (int seq = min_seq[type], (gen)=(seq_to_gen(seq)); seq <=
> max_seq ; seq++) \
> for ((type) = 0; (type) < ANON_AND_FILE; (type)++) \
> for ((zone) = 0; (zone) < MAX_NR_ZONES; (zone)++)
I explained in another email that you might not have the time to go
over yet [1].
This has to be all *possible* generations, not just [min_seq, max_seq].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/CAOUHufa50Mj6wusKvFX2cCAk58oTwCLDC8im+_B6OS_dP6=TJQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
