Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm:vmscan: the dirty folio in folio_list skip unmap

[zhiguojiang]

在 2023/10/24 15:21, zhiguojiang 写道:
> 在 2023/10/24 15:07, David Hildenbrand 写道:
> > On 24.10.23 04:04, zhiguojiang wrote:
> > > 在 2023/10/23 21:01, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 08:44:55PM +0800, zhiguojiang wrote:
> > > > > 在 2023/10/23 20:21, Matthew Wilcox 写道:
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 04:07:28PM +0800, zhiguojiang wrote:
> > > > > > > > Are you seeing measurable changes for any workloads?  It 
> > > > > > > > certainly seems
> > > > > > > > like you should, but it would help if you chose a test from 
> > > > > > > > mmtests and
> > > > > > > > showed how performance changed on your system.
> > > > > > > In one mmtest, the max times for a invalid recyling of a 
> > > > > > > folio_list dirty
> > > > > > > folio that does not support pageout and has been activated in
> > > > > > > shrink_folio_list() are: cost=51us, exe=2365us.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Calculate according to this formula: dirty_cost / total_cost * 
> > > > > > > 100%, the
> > > > > > > recyling efficiency of dirty folios can be improved 53.13%、82.95%.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So this patch can optimize shrink efficiency and reduce the 
> > > > > > > workload of
> > > > > > > kswapd to a certain extent.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > kswapd0-96      (     96) [005] .....   387.218548:
> > > > > > > mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive: [Justin] nid 0 nr_scanned 32 
> > > > > > > nr_taken 32
> > > > > > > nr_reclaimed 31 nr_dirty  1 nr_unqueued_dirty  1 nr_writeback 0
> > > > > > > nr_activate[1]  1 nr_ref_keep  0 f RECLAIM_WB_FILE|RECLAIM_WB_ASYNC
> > > > > > > total_cost 96 total_exe 2365 dirty_cost 51 total_exe 2365
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > kswapd0-96      (     96) [006] .....   412.822532:
> > > > > > > mm_vmscan_lru_shrink_inactive: [Justin] nid 0 nr_scanned 32 
> > > > > > > nr_taken 32
> > > > > > > nr_reclaimed  0 nr_dirty 32 nr_unqueued_dirty 32 nr_writeback 0
> > > > > > > nr_activate[1] 19 nr_ref_keep 13 f RECLAIM_WB_FILE|RECLAIM_WB_ASYNC
> > > > > > > total_cost 88 total_exe 605  dirty_cost 73 total_exe 605
> > > > > > I appreciate that you can put probes in and determine the cost, 
> > > > > > but do
> > > > > > you see improvements for a real workload?  Like doing a kernel 
> > > > > > compile
> > > > > > -- does it speed up at all?
> > > > > Can you help share a method for testing thread workload, like kswapd?
> > > > Something dirt simple like 'time make -j8'.
> > > Two compilations were conducted separately, and compared to the
> > > unmodified compilation,
> > > the compilation time for adding modified patches had a certain
> > > reduction, as follows:
> > >
> > > Compilation command:
> > > make distclean -j8
> > > make ARCH=x86_64 x86_64_defconfig
> > > time make -j8
> > >
> > > 1.Unmodified Compilation time:
> > > real    2m40.276s
> > > user    16m2.956s
> > > sys     2m14.738s
> > >
> > > real    2m40.136s
> > > user    16m2.617s
> > > sys     2m14.722s
> > >
> > > 2.[Patch v2 1/2] Modified Compilation time:
> > > real    2m40.067s
> > > user    16m3.164s
> > > sys     2m14.211s
> > >
> > > real    2m40.123s
> > > user    16m2.439s
> > > sys     2m14.508s
> > >
> > > 3 [Patch v2 1/2] + [Patch v2 2/2] Modified Compilation time:
> > > real    2m40.367s
> > > user    16m3.738s
> > > sys     2m13.662s
> > >
> > > real    2m40.014s
> > > user    16m3.108s
> > > sys     2m14.096s
> >
> > To get expressive numbers two iterations are usually not sufficient. 
> > How much memory does you system have? Does vmscan even ever get active?
> Test system memory:  MemTotal:    8161608 kB.  When multiple Apps were 
> opened, vmscan can get active. I can capture a lot of tracelog data 
> through testing, I only posted two sets of tracelog data.
Hi, please help to continue reviewing this path and draw a conclusion on 
whether it can be merged. Thanks.
>