Hi! > - 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. Is it still faster to swap-in the application than to restart it? > 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); That's quite a complex interface. Could we simply have feel_free_to_swap_out(int pid) syscall? :-). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html