From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Chen Wandun <chenwandun@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] Add swappiness argument to memory.reclaim Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 11:06:36 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAJD7tkYnBjuwQDzdeo6irHY=so-E8z=Kc_kZe52anMOmRL+8yA@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YoNHJwyjR7NJ5kG7@dhcp22.suse.cz> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:56 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote: > > On Mon 16-05-22 15:29:42, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > The discussions on the patch series [1] to add memory.reclaim has > > shown that it is desirable to add an argument to control the type of > > memory being reclaimed by invoked proactive reclaim using > > memory.reclaim. > > > > I am proposing adding a swappiness optional argument to the interface. > > If set, it overwrites vm.swappiness and per-memcg swappiness. This > > provides a way to enforce user policy on a stateless per-reclaim > > basis. We can make policy decisions to perform reclaim differently for > > tasks of different app classes based on their individual QoS needs. It > > also helps for use cases when particularly page cache is high and we > > want to mainly hit that without swapping out. > > Can you be more specific about the usecase please? Also how do you For example for a class of applications it may be known that reclaiming one type of pages anon/file is more profitable or will incur an overhead, based on userspace knowledge of the nature of the app. If most of what an app use for example is anon/tmpfs then it might be better to explicitly ask the kernel to reclaim anon, and to avoid reclaiming file pages in order not to hurt the file cache performance. It could also be a less aggressive alternative to /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches. > define the semantic? Behavior like vm_swappiness is rather vague because > the kernel is free to ignore (and it does indeed) this knob in many > situations. What is the expected behavior when user explicitly requests > a certain swappiness? My initial thoughts was to have the same behavior as vm_swappiness, but stateless. If a user provides a swappiness value then we use it instead of vm_swappiness. However, I am aware that the definition is vague and there are no guarantees here, the only reason I proposed swappiness vs. explicit type arguments (like the original RFC and Roman's reply) is flexibility. It looks like explicit type arguments would be more practical though. I will continue the discussion replying to Roman. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> To: Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin-fxUVXftIFDnyG1zEObXtfA@public.gmane.org>, cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, Wei Xu <weixugc-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, Greg Thelen <gthelen-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, Chen Wandun <chenwandun-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] Add swappiness argument to memory.reclaim Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 11:06:36 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAJD7tkYnBjuwQDzdeo6irHY=so-E8z=Kc_kZe52anMOmRL+8yA@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YoNHJwyjR7NJ5kG7-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 11:56 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko-IBi9RG/b67k@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > On Mon 16-05-22 15:29:42, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > The discussions on the patch series [1] to add memory.reclaim has > > shown that it is desirable to add an argument to control the type of > > memory being reclaimed by invoked proactive reclaim using > > memory.reclaim. > > > > I am proposing adding a swappiness optional argument to the interface. > > If set, it overwrites vm.swappiness and per-memcg swappiness. This > > provides a way to enforce user policy on a stateless per-reclaim > > basis. We can make policy decisions to perform reclaim differently for > > tasks of different app classes based on their individual QoS needs. It > > also helps for use cases when particularly page cache is high and we > > want to mainly hit that without swapping out. > > Can you be more specific about the usecase please? Also how do you For example for a class of applications it may be known that reclaiming one type of pages anon/file is more profitable or will incur an overhead, based on userspace knowledge of the nature of the app. If most of what an app use for example is anon/tmpfs then it might be better to explicitly ask the kernel to reclaim anon, and to avoid reclaiming file pages in order not to hurt the file cache performance. It could also be a less aggressive alternative to /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches. > define the semantic? Behavior like vm_swappiness is rather vague because > the kernel is free to ignore (and it does indeed) this knob in many > situations. What is the expected behavior when user explicitly requests > a certain swappiness? My initial thoughts was to have the same behavior as vm_swappiness, but stateless. If a user provides a swappiness value then we use it instead of vm_swappiness. However, I am aware that the definition is vague and there are no guarantees here, the only reason I proposed swappiness vs. explicit type arguments (like the original RFC and Roman's reply) is flexibility. It looks like explicit type arguments would be more practical though. I will continue the discussion replying to Roman. > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-17 18:07 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-05-16 22:29 [RFC] Add swappiness argument to memory.reclaim Yosry Ahmed 2022-05-16 22:29 ` Yosry Ahmed 2022-05-17 6:56 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-17 6:56 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-17 18:06 ` Yosry Ahmed [this message] 2022-05-17 18:06 ` Yosry Ahmed 2022-05-17 20:06 ` Johannes Weiner 2022-05-17 20:06 ` Johannes Weiner 2022-05-19 5:44 ` Wei Xu 2022-05-19 5:44 ` Wei Xu 2022-05-19 8:51 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-19 8:51 ` Michal Hocko 2022-05-19 15:29 ` Wei Xu 2022-05-19 15:29 ` Wei Xu 2022-05-19 18:24 ` Yosry Ahmed 2022-05-19 18:24 ` Yosry Ahmed 2022-05-17 16:05 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-05-17 16:05 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-05-17 18:13 ` Yosry Ahmed 2022-05-17 18:13 ` Yosry Ahmed 2022-05-17 19:49 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-05-17 19:49 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-05-17 20:11 ` Yosry Ahmed 2022-05-17 20:11 ` Yosry Ahmed 2022-05-17 20:45 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-05-17 20:45 ` Roman Gushchin 2022-05-19 5:17 ` Wei Xu 2022-05-19 5:17 ` Wei Xu
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CAJD7tkYnBjuwQDzdeo6irHY=so-E8z=Kc_kZe52anMOmRL+8yA@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=yosryahmed@google.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=chenwandun@huawei.com \ --cc=gthelen@google.com \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mhocko@suse.com \ --cc=rientjes@google.com \ --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \ --cc=shakeelb@google.com \ --cc=tj@kernel.org \ --cc=weixugc@google.com \ --cc=yuzhao@google.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.