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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 A7FEFC31E40 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 18:26:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E92220C01 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 18:26:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2407075AbfHIS0V (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:26:21 -0400 Received: from out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com ([115.124.30.132]:56199 "EHLO out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726377AbfHIS0V (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Aug 2019 14:26:21 -0400 X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R491e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=e01e07417;MF=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=8;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0TZ1vktP_1565375173; Received: from US-143344MP.local(mailfrom:yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0TZ1vktP_1565375173) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com(127.0.0.1); Sat, 10 Aug 2019 02:26:17 +0800 Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2 -mm] mm: account lazy free pages separately To: Michal Hocko Cc: kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, vbabka@suse.cz, rientjes@google.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1565308665-24747-1-git-send-email-yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <20190809083216.GM18351@dhcp22.suse.cz> <1a3c4185-c7ab-8d6f-8191-77dce02025a7@linux.alibaba.com> <20190809180238.GS18351@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: Yang Shi Message-ID: <79c90f6b-fcac-02e1-015a-0eaa4eafdf7d@linux.alibaba.com> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:26:13 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190809180238.GS18351@dhcp22.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/9/19 11:02 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 09-08-19 09:19:13, Yang Shi wrote: >> >> On 8/9/19 1:32 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> On Fri 09-08-19 07:57:44, Yang Shi wrote: >>>> When doing partial unmap to THP, the pages in the affected range would >>>> be considered to be reclaimable when memory pressure comes in. And, >>>> such pages would be put on deferred split queue and get minus from the >>>> memory statistics (i.e. /proc/meminfo). >>>> >>>> For example, when doing THP split test, /proc/meminfo would show: >>>> >>>> Before put on lazy free list: >>>> MemTotal: 45288336 kB >>>> MemFree: 43281376 kB >>>> MemAvailable: 43254048 kB >>>> ... >>>> Active(anon): 1096296 kB >>>> Inactive(anon): 8372 kB >>>> ... >>>> AnonPages: 1096264 kB >>>> ... >>>> AnonHugePages: 1056768 kB >>>> >>>> After put on lazy free list: >>>> MemTotal: 45288336 kB >>>> MemFree: 43282612 kB >>>> MemAvailable: 43255284 kB >>>> ... >>>> Active(anon): 1094228 kB >>>> Inactive(anon): 8372 kB >>>> ... >>>> AnonPages: 49668 kB >>>> ... >>>> AnonHugePages: 10240 kB >>>> >>>> The THPs confusingly look disappeared although they are still on LRU if >>>> you are not familair the tricks done by kernel. >>> Is this a fallout of the recent deferred freeing work? >> This series follows up the discussion happened when reviewing "Make deferred >> split shrinker memcg aware". > OK, so it is a pre-existing problem. Thanks! > >> David Rientjes suggested deferred split THP should be accounted into >> available memory since they would be shrunk when memory pressure comes in, >> just like MADV_FREE pages. For the discussion, please refer to: >> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg2010115.html > Thanks for the reference. > >>>> Accounted the lazy free pages to NR_LAZYFREE, and show them in meminfo >>>> and other places. With the change the /proc/meminfo would look like: >>>> Before put on lazy free list: >>> The name is really confusing because I have thought of MADV_FREE immediately. >> Yes, I agree. We may use a more specific name, i.e. DeferredSplitTHP. >> >>>> +LazyFreePages: Cleanly freeable pages under memory pressure (i.e. deferred >>>> + split THP). >>> What does that mean actually? I have hard time imagine what cleanly >>> freeable pages mean. >> Like deferred split THP and MADV_FREE pages, they could be reclaimed during >> memory pressure. >> >> If you just go with "DeferredSplitTHP", these ambiguity would go away. > I have to study the code some more but is there any reason why those > pages are not accounted as proper THPs anymore? Sure they are partially > unmaped but they are still THPs so why cannot we keep them accounted > like that. Having a new counter to reflect that sounds like papering > over the problem to me. But as I've said I might be missing something > important here. I think we could keep those pages accounted for NR_ANON_THPS since they are still THP although they are unmapped as you mentioned if we just want to fix the improper accounting. Here the new counter is introduced for patch 2/2 to account deferred split THPs into available memory since NR_ANON_THPS may contain non-deferred split THPs. I could use an internal counter for deferred split THPs, but if it is accounted by mod_node_page_state, why not just show it in /proc/meminfo? Or we fix NR_ANON_THPS and show deferred split THPs in /proc/meminfo? >