From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D07C04AB5 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 21:51:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0331226CF9 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 21:51:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="TcpGUrg+" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0331226CF9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=cmpxchg.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 910A26B0272; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 17:51:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 89AB86B0273; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 17:51:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 73C206B0274; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 17:51:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from mail-pf1-f197.google.com (mail-pf1-f197.google.com [209.85.210.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343976B0272 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 17:51:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf1-f197.google.com with SMTP id b127so14546998pfb.8 for ; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:51:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:dkim-signature:date:from:to:cc:subject :message-id:references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=2G97OZEj3bcz7g9+L/c8Sqb4z92z7H9KjokgHfuHZXE=; b=YjWuuQ0b7pMacu93wejEBc1+vYi89daViZP3tOwRPWvGsSxw9pUBHEXS0rLCkddNc3 yGNFrouKtvqLXFWdbnljM6/fvzH0sk07lajy2hmX8ZDf7F4nCFMW20qtZULQtOW+CuOF 9QBfjv86wh5pcXt9OOU1Xj+TaZrJPT7m7zgE8zXQTdRJaDDPpdt2KcBcQCqoxP79HPBd HK/o1hWkb5TmbyesMrqPHkYsJVwgwbvGFyRa41dn5umk76gkngpFG5oX3fQelUuetAtP 9toDr8HvImsAAe4QA0jgdbCTG7zB/w47fGwrXM80LMYORc49zy7v4TaVac/xHRNXyvaw 5Wmw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWPQvG1hmR9uF8K0yq2W05RAEmm1vAMRfKpP0zpJGCBiPWmjqae QMr9AQQL8x4fwS3K+bH7CvauT39SMm/ez/DbutTfNud1wtKa34J3RDQrDuoQg7j5JY5+Hes36E9 ItkXApFA03/izX4BaV35HP//NJJWeHvpsumMGeYusm6UhPpVzR2nMcrCvFAySra1LZA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ba82:: with SMTP id k2mr23365941pls.323.1559598663731; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:51:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ba82:: with SMTP id k2mr23365885pls.323.1559598662426; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:51:02 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1559598662; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=qC9jKS5iuG/k9/R1Sx6n8+pS6yHufUVmVjxqP3T9Roh1loSZerzfGqRmWNvmLVQEAu Kd/x7IjjG0EGX15s/kvmtIOL/smq0+D7OQwnXitvWE4HVJxt+Kc8JJtnaH+VJU/UDOTT 2RAnamOwNziKDBWot0T577d4e+6sJAeiEE+/rJoECsaU3bi0yBFsfiZ5zV9TtvBgcR4n HKqYeRNvyE5HF9j5Rwkphoev9m+iMzAmZRMcya+Yn12DlMFy/53/lNEVzCZyyb6A5ROb ZLfOs1gdDzuGR/LlLG4zMybM7YKy0LtMDh1yDA1kWqw4AD/sasc92LM1AgIARNjoYW1W X1bA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=2G97OZEj3bcz7g9+L/c8Sqb4z92z7H9KjokgHfuHZXE=; b=NYnLW/5wOgTVN7YXomW12kiNQV3spA4QJIhARWLIo7exZk6AZHUTdlwp/AEJwCTYWL BquKW8lSvBQWwyr3RVy3Eqe7yQX842yt1YPgmC96MIaeRDDQj53h3smpqy58+K/BzBX9 x85Kup1CLJqGAtOOb4g+7iy62TjDJJ99nFglsAZZOcAQAXtuGT/h73TPOL1uceDfAEhy E4tCYgoliKOw0l0bfBmZsUEu9AgBtEnenR5XmOUUlAXmDKRpa2lBtkwpqxMhMZMrGRPu VpHxTqiYpwvrPgqdp4hVboDPnkyNA9u9l1AneYbV1eoOoICSX4n1CXu7O2zrYHVqkiji ldvw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=TcpGUrg+; spf=pass (google.com: domain of hannes@cmpxchg.org designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hannes@cmpxchg.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=cmpxchg.org Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id v62sor17932941pfv.50.2019.06.03.14.51.02 for (Google Transport Security); Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of hannes@cmpxchg.org designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.65; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=TcpGUrg+; spf=pass (google.com: domain of hannes@cmpxchg.org designates 209.85.220.65 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hannes@cmpxchg.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=cmpxchg.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cmpxchg-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=2G97OZEj3bcz7g9+L/c8Sqb4z92z7H9KjokgHfuHZXE=; b=TcpGUrg+mYmbrp0vjnO/bJFOPqdnvtpXA4/9hZZN1jJshYuuV/o733SpdjwhHgcKMG 44iUP24R3eMi6NSL7ALSlKujvWUqxaK/ZvGDOOP1cKnv0Ls0OJdUmirc2V3EZop91zDw dMcqmJ9K6fUs0xhgdvefs5EcIMQbYUaow3esNwxlPGJa4Cb1385K8IQ0aAobeYAStcsZ 1xG3Sh96eSZK+3PYMbJi8pXFUf5YpeQfUVJJcx6ybXj29/SoqCG9xXBigtUoK/1cHESC t96pNurULpvmR1Qfx9TsTwt1/KCcWotUx8KStYtsRdCD3Bs8eHLJg+3NAPE/mPKO246T Z5xQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx9hZ+MTHo4qC9c2fIu1p2/b6Nxs1A2APiURBsRrL9fhsGlvVDxYID2+Rw4OX+7FUsyYf4ZnQ== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:804c:: with SMTP id y12mr33488675pfm.94.1559598661807; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:10d:c091:500::1:9fa4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f10sm20776759pgo.14.2019.06.03.14.51.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Mon, 03 Jun 2019 14:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 17:50:59 -0400 From: Johannes Weiner To: Michal Hocko Cc: Minchan Kim , Andrew Morton , linux-mm , LKML , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Tim Murray , Joel Fernandes , Suren Baghdasaryan , Daniel Colascione , Shakeel Butt , Sonny Rao , Brian Geffon , jannh@google.com, oleg@redhat.com, christian@brauner.io, oleksandr@redhat.com, hdanton@sina.com Subject: Re: [RFCv2 1/6] mm: introduce MADV_COLD Message-ID: <20190603215059.GA16824@cmpxchg.org> References: <20190531064313.193437-1-minchan@kernel.org> <20190531064313.193437-2-minchan@kernel.org> <20190531084752.GI6896@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190531133904.GC195463@google.com> <20190531140332.GT6896@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190531143407.GB216592@google.com> <20190603071607.GB4531@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190603172717.GA30363@cmpxchg.org> <20190603203230.GB22799@dhcp22.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190603203230.GB22799@dhcp22.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.4 (2019-03-13) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 10:32:30PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Mon 03-06-19 13:27:17, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 09:16:07AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Fri 31-05-19 23:34:07, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 04:03:32PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > On Fri 31-05-19 22:39:04, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:47:52AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri 31-05-19 15:43:08, Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > > > > > When a process expects no accesses to a certain memory range, it could > > > > > > > > give a hint to kernel that the pages can be reclaimed when memory pressure > > > > > > > > happens but data should be preserved for future use. This could reduce > > > > > > > > workingset eviction so it ends up increasing performance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch introduces the new MADV_COLD hint to madvise(2) syscall. > > > > > > > > MADV_COLD can be used by a process to mark a memory range as not expected > > > > > > > > to be used in the near future. The hint can help kernel in deciding which > > > > > > > > pages to evict early during memory pressure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Internally, it works via deactivating pages from active list to inactive's > > > > > > > > head if the page is private because inactive list could be full of > > > > > > > > used-once pages which are first candidate for the reclaiming and that's a > > > > > > > > reason why MADV_FREE move pages to head of inactive LRU list. Therefore, > > > > > > > > if the memory pressure happens, they will be reclaimed earlier than other > > > > > > > > active pages unless there is no access until the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [I am intentionally not looking at the implementation because below > > > > > > > points should be clear from the changelog - sorry about nagging ;)] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What kind of pages can be deactivated? Anonymous/File backed. > > > > > > > Private/shared? If shared, are there any restrictions? > > > > > > > > > > > > Both file and private pages could be deactived from each active LRU > > > > > > to each inactive LRU if the page has one map_count. In other words, > > > > > > > > > > > > if (page_mapcount(page) <= 1) > > > > > > deactivate_page(page); > > > > > > > > > > Why do we restrict to pages that are single mapped? > > > > > > > > Because page table in one of process shared the page would have access bit > > > > so finally we couldn't reclaim the page. The more process it is shared, > > > > the more fail to reclaim. > > > > > > So what? In other words why should it be restricted solely based on the > > > map count. I can see a reason to restrict based on the access > > > permissions because we do not want to simplify all sorts of side channel > > > attacks but memory reclaim is capable of reclaiming shared pages and so > > > far I haven't heard any sound argument why madvise should skip those. > > > Again if there are any reasons, then document them in the changelog. > > > > I think it makes sense. It could be explained, but it also follows > > established madvise semantics, and I'm not sure it's necessarily > > Minchan's job to re-iterate those. > > > > Sharing isn't exactly transparent to userspace. The kernel does COW, > > ksm etc. When you madvise, you can really only speak for your own > > reference to that memory - "*I* am not using this." > > > > This is in line with other madvise calls: MADV_DONTNEED clears the > > local page table entries and drops the corresponding references, so > > shared pages won't get freed. MADV_FREE clears the pte dirty bit and > > also has explicit mapcount checks before clearing PG_dirty, so again > > shared pages don't get freed. > > Right, being consistent with other madvise syscalls is certainly a way > to go. And I am not pushing one way or another, I just want this to be > documented with a reasoning behind. Consistency is certainly an argument > to use. > > On the other hand these non-destructive madvise operations are quite > different and the shared policy might differ as a result as well. We are > aging objects rather than destroying them after all. Being able to age > a pagecache with a sufficient privileges sounds like a useful usecase to > me. In other words you are able to cause the same effect indirectly > without the madvise operation so it kinda makes sense to allow it in a > more sophisticated way. Right, I don't think it's about permission - as you say, you can do this indirectly. Page reclaim is all about relative page order, so if we thwarted you from demoting some pages, you could instead promote other pages to cause a similar end result. I think it's about intent. You're advising the kernel that *you're* not using this memory and would like to have it cleared out based on that knowledge. You could do the same by simply allocating the new pages and have the kernel sort it out. However, if the kernel sorts it out, it *will* look at other users of the page, and it might decide that other pages are actually colder when considering all users. When you ignore shared state, on the other hand, the pages you advise out could refault right after. And then, not only did you not free up the memory, but you also caused IO that may interfere with bringing in the new data for which you tried to create room in the first place. So I don't think it ever makes sense to override it. But it might be better to drop the explicit mapcount check and instead make the local pte young and call shrink_page_list() without the TTU_IGNORE_ACCESS, ignore_references flags - leave it to reclaim code to handle references and shared pages exactly the same way it would if those pages came fresh off the LRU tail, excluding only the reference from the mapping that we're madvising.