Re: [linus:master] [page cache] 9425c591e0: vm-scalability.throughput -20.0% regression

From: Yin, Fengwei
Date: Mon Jun 26 2023 - 05:09:16 EST


Hi Mike,

> On 06/21/23 15:19, kernel test robot wrote:
<snip>
> I suspected this change could impact page_cache_next/prev_miss users, but had
> no idea how much.
>
> Unless someone sees something wrong in 9425c591e06a, the best approach
> might be to revert and then add a simple interface to check for 'folio at
> a given index in the cache' as suggested by Ackerley Tng.
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/98624c2f481966492b4eb8272aef747790229b73.1683069252.git.ackerleytng@xxxxxxxxxx/

Some findings in my side.
1. You patch impact the folio order for file readahead. I collect the histogram of
order parameter to filemap_alloc_folio() call w/o your patch:

With your patch:
page order : count distribution
0 : 892073 | |
1 : 0 | |
2 : 65120457 |****************************************|
3 : 32914005 |******************** |
4 : 33020991 |******************** |

Without your patch:
page order : count distribution
0 : 3417288 |**** |
1 : 0 | |
2 : 877012 |* |
3 : 288 | |
4 : 5607522 |******* |
5 : 29974228 |****************************************|

We could see the order 5 dominate the filemap folio without your patch. With your
patch, order 2,3,4 are most used for filemap folio.

2. My understanding is your patch is correct and shouldn't be reverted. I made
a small change based on your patch. The performance regression is gone.

diff --git a/mm/readahead.c b/mm/readahead.c
index 47afbca1d122..cca333f9b560 100644
--- a/mm/readahead.c
+++ b/mm/readahead.c
@@ -610,7 +610,7 @@ static void ondemand_readahead(struct readahead_control *ractl,
pgoff_t start;

rcu_read_lock();
- start = page_cache_next_miss(ractl->mapping, index + 1,
+ start = page_cache_next_miss(ractl->mapping, index,
max_pages);
rcu_read_unlock();

And the filemap folio order is restored also:
page order : count distribution
0 : 3357622 |**** |
1 : 0 | |
2 : 861726 |* |
3 : 285 | |
4 : 4511637 |***** |
5 : 30505713 |****************************************|

I still didn't figure out why this simple change can restore the performance.
And why index + 1 was used. Will check more.


Regards
Yin, Fengwei