From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mta21.hihonor.com (mta21.hihonor.com [81.70.160.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 893DB3DAAA3 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:01:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=81.70.160.142 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784887312; cv=none; b=mUoGA5PSiHWu8KwF4olZsMujdFP4n0YBp7sGVmxnrggKfXXyYHpvo3bfRYI0Mtntb3kpMSuKMoBA2rDuyiHZ/iymx5EJM6FCM5zVkBV+iQnEViORkV0cXjB8Xh6KeoRBg1k1H1Mo6vpGeZ93SOoxEWbmIzveuuwbk4oxk6KvbNw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784887312; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4HYZOPIsUnIFdPOpw5d0WAo7/3JWsj8reNNTfwXkPvQ=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Date: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=K5VbcPxKZ5r9BlYH96On/MzkFHR8OPKf+n9DK186ygWnftNLM2qJHWEFdknHmOb+ukoA8k2PysBcPD2H37F0s2WeYIMyBLPhvlBfMZFd1qocLs61Y5kVtEmMvhQxPevxsbhhi3PH3ytr7A14iMnLYV2aBXodcNfPOttzBa6m4rU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=honor.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=honor.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=81.70.160.142 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=honor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=honor.com Received: from TW005.hihonor.com (unknown [10.72.0.123]) by mta21.hihonor.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4h63Rg1Sv5zYl38y; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 18:01:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from TA012-1.hihonor.com (10.77.199.132) by TW005.hihonor.com (10.72.0.123) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.43; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 18:01:35 +0800 Received: from [10.144.5.36] (10.144.5.36) by TA012-1.hihonor.com (10.77.199.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.43; Fri, 24 Jul 2026 18:01:32 +0800 From: Zicheng Wang To: Baolin Wang CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] promote mapped executable folios after first usage for MGLRU Message-ID: <20260724160000.b4-mglru-feedback@hihonor.com> In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 16:00:00 +0800 User-Agent: b4 send-reply (non-TUI) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-ClientProxiedBy: TW005.hihonor.com (10.72.0.123) To TA012-1.hihonor.com (10.77.199.132) Hi Baolin, We backport and test an Android handset(qcom8850, 6.12, 12 GB). Patch 1's vma_flags_t isn't on 6.12, so we kept only the core check in its legacy form: (vma->vm_flags & VM_EXEC) Since this is a backport, the numbers below just show the direction of change. Overall the patch does well, and ran for several hours with no crashes or hangs: Camera (launch + capture, 22 background apps resident): cold-start p50 -6.3% capture on par memavail at startup +4 .. +7% Reclaim over the same window, as the patch intends: pgsteal_kswapd -46.5% pgscan_kswapd -52.9% pgsteal_direct +0.8% pgscan_direct -6.7% pgsteal_anon -13.8% pgscan_anon -13.8% pgsteal_file -14.5% pgscan_file -30.1% Dynamic jank (cold start + scroll, x10): missed-frame <1% on both base and patched; not memory-bound enough to discriminate. One trade-off, same run. PSI (memory) creeps up on the sustained window: avg10 avg60 avg300 some base 0.00 0.03 0.33 some patched 0.00 0.02 0.37 (+12%) full base 0.00 0.00 0.10 full patched 0.00 0.00 0.13 (+30%) and kernel stack footprint -5.3%. Reads as LMKD keeping fewer background apps alive. This seems an Android policy interaction, not a kernel regression. Downstreams with aggressive LMKD may want to retune. Just curious — did PSI move at all in your make -j32 run? Best, Zicheng