Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] mm: report per-page metadata information

[Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>]

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 4:22 PM Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 11:34 AM Pasha Tatashin
> <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I could have sworn that I pointed that out in a previous version and
> > > > > requested to document that special case in the patch description. :)
> > > >
> > > > Sounds, good we will document that parts of per-page may not be part
> > > > of MemTotal.
> > >
> > > But this still doesn't answer how we can use the new PageMetadata
> > > field to help break down the runtime kernel overhead within MemUsed
> > > (MemTotal - MemFree).
> >
> > I am not sure it matters to the end users: they look at PageMetadata
> > with or without Page Owner, page_table_check, HugeTLB and it shows
> > exactly how much per-page overhead changed. Where the kernel allocated
> > that memory is not that important to the end user as long as that
> > memory became available to them.
> >
> > In addition, it is still possible to estimate the actual memblock part
> > of Per-page metadata by looking at /proc/zoneinfo:
> >
> > Memblock reserved per-page metadata: "present_pages - managed_pages"
>
> This assumes that all reserved memblocks are per-page metadata. As I

Right after boot, when all Per-page metadata is still from memblocks,
we could determine what part of the zone reserved memory is not
per-page, and use it later in our calculations.

> mentioned earlier, it is not a robust approach.
> > If there is something big that we will allocate in that range, we
> > should probably also export it in some form.
> >
> > If this field does not fit in /proc/meminfo due to not fully being
> > part of MemTotal, we could just keep it under nodeN/, as a separate
> > file, as suggested by Greg.
> >
> > However, I think it is useful enough to have an easy system wide view
> > for Per-page metadata.
>
> It is fine to have this as a separate, informational sysfs file under
> nodeN/, outside of meminfo. I just don't think as in the current
> implementation (where PageMetadata is a mixture of buddy and memblock
> allocations), it can help with the use case that motivates this
> change, i.e. to improve the breakdown of the kernel overhead.
> > > > > > are allocated), so what would be the best way to export page metadata
> > > > > > without redefining MemTotal? Keep the new field in /proc/meminfo but
> > > > > > be ok that it is not part of MemTotal or do two counters? If we do two
> > > > > > counters, we will still need to keep one that is a buddy allocator in
> > > > > > /proc/meminfo and the other one somewhere outside?
> > > > >
> > >
> > > I think the simplest thing to do now is to only report the buddy
> > > allocations of per-page metadata in meminfo.  The meaning of the new
> >
> > This will cause PageMetadata to be 0 on 99% of the systems, and
> > essentially become useless to the vast majority of users.
>
> I don't think it is a major issue. There are other fields (e.g. Zswap)
> in meminfo that remain 0 when the feature is not used.

Since we are going to use two independent interfaces
/proc/meminfo/PageMetadata and nodeN/page_metadata (in a separate file
as requested by Greg) How about if in /proc/meminfo we provide only
the buddy allocator part, and in nodeN/page_metadata we provide the
total per-page overhead in the given node that include memblock
reserves, and buddy allocator memory?

Pasha