lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] mm: introduce NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 07:02:42PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 04/25/2018 06:48 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 05:47:26PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 04/25/2018 02:52 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 09:19:29AM +0530, Vijayanand Jitta wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Idk, I don't like the idea of adding a counter outside of the vm counters
> >>>>>>>> infrastructure, and I definitely wouldn't touch the exposed
> >>>>>>>> nr_slab_reclaimable and nr_slab_unreclaimable fields.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We would be just making the reported values more precise wrt reality.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It depends on if we believe that only slab memory can be reclaimable
> >>>>>> or not. If yes, this is true, otherwise not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My guess is that some drivers (e.g. networking) might have buffers,
> >>>>>> which are reclaimable under mempressure, and are allocated using
> >>>>>> the page allocator. But I have to look closer...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One such case I have encountered is that of the ION page pool. The page pool
> >>>>> registers a shrinker. When not in any memory pressure page pool can go high
> >>>>> and thus cause an mmap to fail when OVERCOMMIT_GUESS is set. I can send
> >>>>> a patch to account ION page pool pages in NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES.
> >>
> >> FYI, we have discussed this at LSF/MM and agreed to try the kmalloc
> >> reclaimable caches idea. The existing counter could then remain for page
> >> allocator users such as ION. It's a bit weird to have it in bytes and
> >> not pages then, IMHO. What if we hid it from /proc/vmstat now so it
> >> doesn't become ABI, and later convert it to page granularity and expose
> >> it under a name such as "nr_other_reclaimable" ?
> >
> > I've nothing against hiding it from /proc/vmstat, as long as we keep
> > the counter in place and the main issue resolved.
>
> Sure.
>
> > Maybe it's better to add nr_reclaimable = nr_slab_reclaimable + nr_other_reclaimable,
> > which will have a simpler meaning that nr_other_reclaimable (what is other?).
>
> "other" can be changed, sure. nr_reclaimable is possible if we change
> slab to adjust that counter as well - vmstat code doesn't support
> arbitrary calculations when printing.

Sure, but even just hiding a value isn't that easy now.
So we have to touch the vmstat printing code anyway.

Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-25 19:24    [W:0.048 / U:20.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site