lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/5] Introduce MADV_COLD and MADV_PAGEOUT
On Mon 10-06-19 20:12:47, Minchan Kim wrote:
> This patch is part of previous series:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190531064313.193437-1-minchan@kernel.org/T/#u
> Originally, it was created for external madvise hinting feature.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/31/463
> Michal wanted to separte the discussion from external hinting interface
> so this patchset includes only first part of my entire patchset
>
> - introduce MADV_COLD and MADV_PAGEOUT hint to madvise.
>
> However, I keep entire description for others for easier understanding
> why this kinds of hint was born.
>
> Thanks.
>
> This patchset is against on next-20190530.
>
> Below is description of previous entire patchset.
> ================= &< =====================
>
> - Background
>
> The Android terminology used for forking a new process and starting an app
> from scratch is a cold start, while resuming an existing app is a hot start.
> While we continually try to improve the performance of cold starts, hot
> starts will always be significantly less power hungry as well as faster so
> we are trying to make hot start more likely than cold start.
>
> To increase hot start, Android userspace manages the order that apps should
> be killed in a process called ActivityManagerService. ActivityManagerService
> tracks every Android app or service that the user could be interacting with
> at any time and translates that into a ranked list for lmkd(low memory
> killer daemon). They are likely to be killed by lmkd if the system has to
> reclaim memory. In that sense they are similar to entries in any other cache.
> Those apps are kept alive for opportunistic performance improvements but
> those performance improvements will vary based on the memory requirements of
> individual workloads.
>
> - Problem
>
> Naturally, cached apps were dominant consumers of memory on the system.
> However, they were not significant consumers of swap even though they are
> good candidate for swap. Under investigation, swapping out only begins
> once the low zone watermark is hit and kswapd wakes up, but the overall
> allocation rate in the system might trip lmkd thresholds and cause a cached
> process to be killed(we measured performance swapping out vs. zapping the
> memory by killing a process. Unsurprisingly, zapping is 10x times faster
> even though we use zram which is much faster than real storage) so kill
> from lmkd will often satisfy the high zone watermark, resulting in very
> few pages actually being moved to swap.
>
> - Approach
>
> The approach we chose was to use a new interface to allow userspace to
> proactively reclaim entire processes by leveraging platform information.
> This allowed us to bypass the inaccuracy of the kernel’s LRUs for pages
> that are known to be cold from userspace and to avoid races with lmkd
> by reclaiming apps as soon as they entered the cached state. Additionally,
> it could provide many chances for platform to use much information to
> optimize memory efficiency.
>
> To achieve the goal, the patchset introduce two new options for madvise.
> One is MADV_COLD which will deactivate activated pages and the other is
> MADV_PAGEOUT which will reclaim private pages instantly. These new options
> complement MADV_DONTNEED and MADV_FREE by adding non-destructive ways to
> gain some free memory space. MADV_PAGEOUT is similar to MADV_DONTNEED in a way
> that it hints the kernel that memory region is not currently needed and
> should be reclaimed immediately; MADV_COLD is similar to MADV_FREE in a way
> that it hints the kernel that memory region is not currently needed and
> should be reclaimed when memory pressure rises.

This all is a very good background information suitable for the cover
letter.

> This approach is similar in spirit to madvise(MADV_WONTNEED), but the
> information required to make the reclaim decision is not known to the app.
> Instead, it is known to a centralized userspace daemon, and that daemon
> must be able to initiate reclaim on its own without any app involvement.
> To solve the concern, this patch introduces new syscall -
>
> struct pr_madvise_param {
> int size; /* the size of this structure */
> int cookie; /* reserved to support atomicity */
> int nr_elem; /* count of below arrary fields */
> int __user *hints; /* hints for each range */
> /* to store result of each operation */
> const struct iovec __user *results;
> /* input address ranges */
> const struct iovec __user *ranges;
> };
>
> int process_madvise(int pidfd, struct pr_madvise_param *u_param,
> unsigned long flags);

But this and the following paragraphs are referring to the later step
when the madvise gains a remote process capabilities and that is out
of the scope of this patch series so I would simply remove it from
here. Andrew tends to put the cover letter into the first patch of the
series and that would be indeed
confusing here.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-19 14:29    [W:0.143 / U:5.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site