From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423081AbcFMLub (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:50:31 -0400 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:55604 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422975AbcFMLua (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:50:30 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim To: Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton References: <1465804259-29345-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org> CC: , , Rik van Riel , Redmond , "ZhaoJunmin Zhao(Junmin)" , Vinayak Menon , Juneho Choi , Sangwoo Park , Chan Gyun Jeong From: Chen Feng Message-ID: <575E9DE8.4050200@hisilicon.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:50:00 +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: <1465804259-29345-1-git-send-email-minchan@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.142.193.64] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.575E9DFC.0197,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 86c2caf9020750fd16ca31858cfaf5fc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > > 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(-) >