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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF503CD5BDD for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 11:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 8071C6B0089; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 07:04:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7B7506B008A; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 07:04:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 67F7B6B008C; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 07:04:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4809C6B0089 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 07:04:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin08.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E47DA81424 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 11:04:41 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82534030362.08.AA97363 Received: from mail115-95.sinamail.sina.com.cn (mail115-95.sinamail.sina.com.cn [218.30.115.95]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A479D12002A for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 11:04:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of hdanton@sina.com designates 218.30.115.95 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hdanton@sina.com; dmarc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1725620581; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=W11N204h68vxPIf62GsX1qhCwBLG11zAXu6mWMWQyaw=; b=yaLVxrp/tQJw8JCHNH3BiJZxtRK0aa5O+tANBuXRO1Lx0ijTD4a3N9Zu+iq5Bl21R55cdC PezZZ68Zz+ZRR4lOak/7bUUlk+6FnTP+TPEcqH4EAF9EObj/P05pP/pKvNa1Ai+d1kvn+9 oxMJIpMvAaJ4yQdJbhzogpNVhPKEI/g= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1725620581; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=TQmnsFrjpYAMgYhJPSClW9YxwX2clOAtl2ZszQKM+3V3hnmjGDtQ8y1URgQ0q8kikgONd8 o4j+NxbltozB5DvcX6b1cu0uGmQOlTvBJFD4DomYvmO8ETD4hjS51AEcRtsTtNH875CsTQ UECBB+YKi6kT9LTWayD76rAqyIycHek= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of hdanton@sina.com designates 218.30.115.95 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=hdanton@sina.com; dmarc=none X-SMAIL-HELO: localhost.localdomain Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain)([116.24.11.67]) by sina.com (10.185.250.23) with ESMTP id 66DAE1BC000070D4; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 19:04:31 +0800 (CST) X-Sender: hdanton@sina.com X-Auth-ID: hdanton@sina.com X-SMAIL-MID: 1108818913234 X-SMAIL-UIID: 851DCCE2AE5142398F3D38AD0207E054-20240906-190431-1 From: Hillf Danton To: Davidlohr Bueso Cc: yosryahmed@google.com, mhocko@kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] mm: introduce per-node proactive reclaim interface Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 19:04:19 +0800 Message-Id: <20240906110419.2079-1-hdanton@sina.com> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Stat-Signature: i7ke9jpipxwrfkozef8tsepwzd694zpk X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A479D12002A X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-HE-Tag: 1725620676-941816 X-HE-Meta: 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 wXn4eF5I iVZaJUCwAtPN/P27RiSsPjP4r28wkwtFyb9oVed4A1yrFnBt5S45mZNw4ZmiKCfGG13MpGrjh5+xlk0xZlTVBrTBaHzHZyMr7vPsIut1kSgY9xk9SVGlZLaWyzszb/Cv0eeD0hZ0JGYp3yi6C9+w1tI7wnCyn3rbDQcRHlEbxzJ1fw2k= 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: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:29:41 -0700 Davidlohr Bueso > On Fri, 06 Sep 2024, Hillf Danton wrote:\n > >The proactive reclaim on the cmdline looks like waste of cpu cycles before > >the cases where kswapd fails to work are spotted. It is not correct to add > >it because you can type the code. > > Are you against proactive reclaim altogether (ie: memcg) or this patch in > particular, which extends its availability? > The against makes no sense to me because I know your patch is never able to escape standing ovation. > The benefits of proactive reclaim are well documented, and the community has > been overall favorable towards it. This operation is not meant to be generally > used, but there are real latency benefits to be had which are completely > unrelated to watermarks. Similarly, we have 'compact' as an alternative to > kcompactd (which was once upon a time part of kswapd). > Because kswapd is responsible for watermark instead of high order pages, compact does not justify proactive reclaim from the begining.