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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no 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 893D1C432BE for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:26:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1482F61051 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:26:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 1482F61051 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=suse.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 48FC16B0071; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 07:26:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4405C8D0002; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 07:26:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 32EEE8D0001; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 07:26:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0208.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.208]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 188E86B0071 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 07:26:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin34.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C010B808CDF0 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:26:48 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78495231696.34.863BDA3 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) by imf04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D715000097 for ; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:26:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E2322176; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:26:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1629458806; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DjkvT2NEndnW8rVNpc3XomY8rLqZ81An0wqzo8QeK40=; b=vXeKWUgjEdvh/lzioOhY2eg1/DJt11NZzQwemLxBb1KWhRBfFMi6b7QTuZ1JdbPS1eepSt 1nQrFTETcDceXccTyi4TY0XNMakY7IZtrUwJJQteJvjs2CtVzVOdRGLDG1RK9kh9PKHJIY rjQHUKHLxdKpIC0jRmQ7N8EZAtLzABo= Received: from suse.cz (unknown [10.100.201.86]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E63C2A3B88; Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:26:45 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 13:26:43 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: yongw.pur@gmail.com Cc: tj@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vdavydov.dev@gmail.com, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, shakeelb@google.com, guro@fb.com, alexs@kernel.org, richard.weiyang@gmail.com, sh_def@163.com, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, wang.yong12@zte.com.cn, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, yang.yang29@zte.com.cn, wangyong Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Add configuration to control whether vmpressure notifier is enabled Message-ID: References: <1629417219-74853-1-git-send-email-wang.yong12@zte.com.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1629417219-74853-1-git-send-email-wang.yong12@zte.com.cn> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47D715000097 Authentication-Results: imf04.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=vXeKWUgj; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com; spf=pass (imf04.hostedemail.com: domain of mhocko@suse.com designates 195.135.220.28 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mhocko@suse.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Stat-Signature: 4bu6rthp65pnbdgaffw79z8w7o3nfyh9 X-HE-Tag: 1629458808-247031 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Thu 19-08-21 16:53:39, yongw.pur@gmail.com wrote: > From: wangyong >=20 > Inspired by PSI features, vmpressure inotifier function should > also be configured to decide whether it is used, because it is an > independent feature which notifies the user of memory pressure. Yes, it is an independent feature indeed but what is the actual reason to put a more configuration space here. Config options are not free both from the user experience POV as well as the code maintenance. Why do we need to disable this feature. Who can benefit from such a setup? > So we add configuration to control whether vmpressure notifier is > enabled, and provide a boot parameter to use vmpressure notifier > flexibly. Flexibility is nice but not free as mentioned above. > Use Christoph Lamenter=E2=80=99s pagefault tool > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/29/294) for comparative testing. > Test with 5.14.0-rc5-next-20210813 on x86_64 4G Ram > To ensure that the vmpressure function is executed, we enable zram > and let the program occupy memory so that some memory is swapped out >=20 > unpatched: > Gb Rep Thr CLine User(s) System(s) Wall(s) flt/cpu/s fault/wsec > 2 1 1 1 0.1 0.97 1.13 485490.062 463533.34 > 2 1 1 1 0.11 0.96 1.12 483086.072 465309.495 > 2 1 1 1 0.1 0.95 1.11 496687.098 469887.643 > 2 1 1 1 0.09 0.97 1.11 489711.434 468402.102 > 2 1 1 1 0.13 0.94 1.12 484159.415 466080.941 > average 0.106 0.958 1.118 487826.8162 466642.7042 >=20 > patched and CONFIG_MEMCG_VMPRESSURE is not set: > Gb Rep Thr CLine User(s) System(s) Wall(s) flt/cpu/s fault/wsec > 2 1 1 1 0.1 0.96 1.1 490942.682 473125.98 > 2 1 1 1 0.08 0.99 1.13 484987.521 463161.975 > 2 1 1 1 0.09 0.96 1.09 498824.98 476696.066 > 2 1 1 1 0.1 0.97 1.12 484127.673 465951.238 > 2 1 1 1 0.1 0.97 1.11 487032 468964.662 > average 0.094 0.97 1.11 489182.9712 469579.9842 >=20 > According to flt/cpu/s, performance improved by 0.2% which is not obvio= us. I haven't checked how are those numbers calculated but from a very brief look it seems like the variation between different runs is higher than 0.2%. Have you checked the average against standard deviation to get a better idea whether the difference is really outside of the noise? --=20 Michal Hocko SUSE Labs