From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422785AbcFMMXf (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:23:35 -0400 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:36684 "EHLO szxga03-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161242AbcFMMXe (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:23:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim To: Chen Feng , Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton References: <1465804259-29345-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org> <575E9DE8.4050200@hisilicon.com> CC: , , Rik van Riel , Redmond , Vinayak Menon , Juneho Choi , Sangwoo Park , Chan Gyun Jeong From: "ZhaoJunmin Zhao(Junmin)" Message-ID: <575EA573.2010204@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:22:11 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <575E9DE8.4050200@hisilicon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.111.57.210] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.575EA599.00AC,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-05-26 15:14:31, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 637c5bca8070338827761358ad5074c3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 在 2016/6/13 19:50, Chen Feng 写道: > Hi Minchan, > > On 2016/6/13 15:50, Minchan Kim wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1480728 >> >> I sent per-process reclaim patchset three years ago. Then, last >> feedback from akpm was that he want to know real usecase scenario. >> >> Since then, I got question from several embedded people of various >> company "why it's not merged into mainline" and heard they have used >> the feature as in-house patch and recenlty, I noticed android from >> Qualcomm started to use it. >> >> Of course, our product have used it and released it in real procuct. >> >> Quote from Sangwoo Park >> Thanks for the data, Sangwoo! >> " >> - Test scenaro >> - platform: android >> - target: MSM8952, 2G DDR, 16G eMMC >> - scenario >> retry app launch and Back Home with 16 apps and 16 turns >> (total app launch count is 256) >> - result: >> resume count | cold launching count >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> vanilla | 85 | 171 >> perproc reclaim | 184 | 72 >> " >> >> Higher resume count is better because cold launching needs loading >> lots of resource data which takes above 15 ~ 20 seconds for some >> games while successful resume just takes 1~5 second. >> >> As perproc reclaim way with new management policy, we could reduce >> cold launching a lot(i.e., 171-72) so that it reduces app startup >> a lot. >> >> Another useful function from this feature is to make swapout easily >> which is useful for testing swapout stress and workloads. >> > Thanks Minchan. > > Yes, this is useful interface when there are memory pressure and let the userspace(Android) > to pick process for reclaim. We also take there series into our platform. > > But I have a question on the reduce app startup time. Can you also share your > theory(management policy) on how can the app reduce it's startup time? > > >> Thanks. Yes, In Huawei device, we use the interface now! Now according to procsss LRU state in ActivityManagerService, we can reclaim some process in proactive way. >> >> Cc: Redmond >> Cc: ZhaoJunmin Zhao(Junmin) >> Cc: Vinayak Menon >> Cc: Juneho Choi >> Cc: Sangwoo Park >> Cc: Chan Gyun Jeong >> >> Minchan Kim (3): >> mm: vmscan: refactoring force_reclaim >> mm: vmscan: shrink_page_list with multiple zones >> mm: per-process reclaim >> >> Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt | 15 ++++ >> fs/proc/base.c | 1 + >> fs/proc/internal.h | 1 + >> fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/rmap.h | 4 + >> mm/vmscan.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++----- >> 6 files changed, 235 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >> > > > . > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f197.google.com (mail-pf0-f197.google.com [209.85.192.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3976B0005 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:23:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f197.google.com with SMTP id g62so190531370pfb.3 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com. [119.145.14.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y144si3140112pfb.83.2016.06.13.05.22.59 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 05:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim References: <1465804259-29345-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org> <575E9DE8.4050200@hisilicon.com> From: "ZhaoJunmin Zhao(Junmin)" Message-ID: <575EA573.2010204@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:22:11 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <575E9DE8.4050200@hisilicon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Chen Feng , Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Rik van Riel , Redmond , Vinayak Menon , Juneho Choi , Sangwoo Park , Chan Gyun Jeong a?? 2016/6/13 19:50, Chen Feng a??e??: > Hi Minchan, > > On 2016/6/13 15:50, Minchan Kim wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1480728 >> >> I sent per-process reclaim patchset three years ago. Then, last >> feedback from akpm was that he want to know real usecase scenario. >> >> Since then, I got question from several embedded people of various >> company "why it's not merged into mainline" and heard they have used >> the feature as in-house patch and recenlty, I noticed android from >> Qualcomm started to use it. >> >> Of course, our product have used it and released it in real procuct. >> >> Quote from Sangwoo Park >> Thanks for the data, Sangwoo! >> " >> - Test scenaro >> - platform: android >> - target: MSM8952, 2G DDR, 16G eMMC >> - scenario >> retry app launch and Back Home with 16 apps and 16 turns >> (total app launch count is 256) >> - result: >> resume count | cold launching count >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> vanilla | 85 | 171 >> perproc reclaim | 184 | 72 >> " >> >> Higher resume count is better because cold launching needs loading >> lots of resource data which takes above 15 ~ 20 seconds for some >> games while successful resume just takes 1~5 second. >> >> As perproc reclaim way with new management policy, we could reduce >> cold launching a lot(i.e., 171-72) so that it reduces app startup >> a lot. >> >> Another useful function from this feature is to make swapout easily >> which is useful for testing swapout stress and workloads. >> > Thanks Minchan. > > Yes, this is useful interface when there are memory pressure and let the userspace(Android) > to pick process for reclaim. We also take there series into our platform. > > But I have a question on the reduce app startup time. Can you also share your > theory(management policy) on how can the app reduce it's startup time? > > >> Thanks. Yes, In Huawei device, we use the interface now! Now according to procsss LRU state in ActivityManagerService, we can reclaim some process in proactive way. >> >> Cc: Redmond >> Cc: ZhaoJunmin Zhao(Junmin) >> Cc: Vinayak Menon >> Cc: Juneho Choi >> Cc: Sangwoo Park >> Cc: Chan Gyun Jeong >> >> Minchan Kim (3): >> mm: vmscan: refactoring force_reclaim >> mm: vmscan: shrink_page_list with multiple zones >> mm: per-process reclaim >> >> Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt | 15 ++++ >> fs/proc/base.c | 1 + >> fs/proc/internal.h | 1 + >> fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/rmap.h | 4 + >> mm/vmscan.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++----- >> 6 files changed, 235 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >> > > > . > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org