On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 4:18 AM Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2024/2/14 15:13, Yu Zhao wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:00 AM <chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> All LRU move interfaces have a problem that it has no effect if the > >> folio is isolated from LRU (in cpu batch or isolated by shrinker). > >> Since it can't move/change folio LRU status when it's isolated, mostly > >> just clear the folio flag and do nothing in this case. > >> > >> In our case, a written back and reclaimable folio won't be rotated to > >> the tail of inactive list, since it's still in cpu lru_add batch. It > >> may cause the delayed reclaim of this folio and evict other folios. > >> > >> This patch changes to queue the reclaimable folio to cpu rotate batch > >> even when !folio_test_lru(), hoping it will likely be handled after > >> the lru_add batch which will put folio on the LRU list first, so > >> will be rotated to the tail successfully when handle rotate batch. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I don't think the analysis is correct. IIRC, writeback from non > > reclaim paths doesn't require isolation and the reclaim path doesn't > > use struct folio_batch lru_add. > > Ah, my bad, I forgot to mention the important context in the message: > > This is not from the normal reclaim context, it's from zswap writeback > reclaim context, which will first set PG_reclaim flag, then submit the > async writeback io. > > If the writeback io complete fast enough, folio_rotate_reclaimable() > will be called before that folio put on LRU list (it still in the local > lru_add batch, so it's somewhat like isolated too) > > > > > Did you see any performance improvements with this patch? In general, > > this kind of patches should have performance numbers to show it really > > helps (not just in theory). > > Right, there are some improvements, the numbers are put in cover letter. > But this solution is not good enough, just RFC for discussion. :) > > mm-unstable-hot zswap-lru-reclaim > real 63.34 62.72 > user 1063.20 1060.30 > sys 272.04 256.14 > workingset_refault_anon 2103297.00 1788155.80 > workingset_refault_file 28638.20 39249.40 > workingset_activate_anon 746134.00 695435.40 > workingset_activate_file 4344.60 4255.80 > workingset_restore_anon 653163.80 605315.60 > workingset_restore_file 1079.00 883.00 > workingset_nodereclaim 0.00 0.00 > pgscan 12971305.60 12730331.20 > pgscan_kswapd 0.00 0.00 > pgscan_direct 12971305.60 12730331.20 > pgscan_khugepaged 0.00 0.00 > > > > > My guess is that you are hitting this problem [1]. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20221116013808.3995280-1-yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Right, I just see it, it's the same problem. The only difference is that > in your case the folio is isolated by shrinker, in my case, the folio is > in cpu lru_add batch. Anyway, the result is the same, that folio can't be > rotated successfully when writeback complete. In that case, a better solution would be to make lru_add add (_reclaim() && !_dirty() && !_writeback()) folios at the tail. (_rotate() needs to leave _reclaim() set if it fails to rotate.)
