[PATCH v9 06/14] mm: multi-gen LRU: minimal implementation

[Barry Song]

On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 4:11 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 9:01 PM Barry Song <21cnbao at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +static int folio_inc_gen(struct lruvec *lruvec, struct folio *folio, bool reclaiming)
> > > +{
> > > +       unsigned long old_flags, new_flags;
> > > +       int type = folio_is_file_lru(folio);
> > > +       struct lru_gen_struct *lrugen = &lruvec->lrugen;
> > > +       int new_gen, old_gen = lru_gen_from_seq(lrugen->min_seq[type]);
> > > +
> > > +       do {
> > > +               new_flags = old_flags = READ_ONCE(folio->flags);
> > > +               VM_BUG_ON_FOLIO(!(new_flags & LRU_GEN_MASK), folio);
> > > +
> > > +               new_gen = ((new_flags & LRU_GEN_MASK) >> LRU_GEN_PGOFF) - 1;
> > > +               new_gen = (old_gen + 1) % MAX_NR_GENS;
> >
> > new_gen is assigned twice, i assume you mean
> >                old_gen = ((new_flags & LRU_GEN_MASK) >> LRU_GEN_PGOFF) - 1;
> >                new_gen = (old_gen + 1) % MAX_NR_GENS;
> >
> > or do you always mean new_gen =  lru_gen_from_seq(min_seq) + 1?
>
> Thanks a lot for your attention to details!
>
> The first line should be in the next patch but I overlooked during the
> last refactoring:

Thanks for the clarification. So an unmapped file-backed page which is
accessed only by system call will always be in either min_seq or
min_seq + 1? it has no chance to be in max_seq like a faulted-in
mapped file page?

>
>   new_gen = ((new_flags & LRU_GEN_MASK) >> LRU_GEN_PGOFF) - 1;
> + /* folio_update_gen() has promoted this page? */
> + if (new_gen >= 0 && new_gen != old_gen)
> + return new_gen;
> +
>   new_gen = (old_gen + 1) % MAX_NR_GENS;

Thanks
Barry