On Tue 06-08-19 07:14:46, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 12:47:55PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Tue 06-08-19 06:36:27, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:42:03AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Mon 05-08-19 13:04:49, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > > > > > This bit will be used by idle page tracking code to correctly identify > > > > > if a page that was swapped out was idle before it got swapped out. > > > > > Without this PTE bit, we lose information about if a page is idle or not > > > > > since the page frame gets unmapped. > > > > > > > > And why do we need that? Why cannot we simply assume all swapped out > > > > pages to be idle? They were certainly idle enough to be reclaimed, > > > > right? Or what does idle actualy mean here? > > > > > > Yes, but other than swapping, in Android a page can be forced to be swapped > > > out as well using the new hints that Minchan is adding? > > > > Yes and that is effectivelly making them idle, no? > > That depends on how you think of it. I would much prefer to have it documented so that I do not have to guess ;) > If you are thinking of a monitoring > process like a heap profiler, then from the heap profiler's (that only cares > about the process it is monitoring) perspective it will look extremely odd if > pages that are recently accessed by the process appear to be idle which would > falsely look like those processes are leaking memory. The reality being, > Android forced those pages into swap because of other reasons. I would like > for the swapping mechanism, whether forced swapping or memory reclaim, not to > interfere with the idle detection. Hmm, but how are you going to handle situation when the page is unmapped and refaulted again (e.g. a normal reclaim of a pagecache)? You are losing that information same was as in the swapout case, no? Or am I missing something? > This is just an effort to make the idle tracking a little bit better. We > would like to not lose the 'accessed' information of the pages. > > Initially, I had proposed what you are suggesting as well however the above > reasons made me to do it like this. Also Minchan and Konstantin suggested > this, so there are more people interested in the swap idle bit. Minchan, can > you provide more thoughts here? (He is on 2-week vacation from today so > hopefully replies before he vanishes ;-)). We can move on with the rest of the series in the mean time but I would like to see a proper justification for the swap entries and why they should be handled special. > Also assuming all swap pages as idle has other "semantic" issues. It is quite > odd if a swapped page is automatically marked as idle without userspace > telling it to. Consider the following set of events: 1. Userspace marks only > a certain memory region as idle. 2. Userspace reads back the bits > corresponding to a bigger region. Part of this bigger region is swapped. > Userspace expects all of the pages it did not mark, to have idle bit set to > '0' because it never marked them as idle. However if it is now surprised by > what it read back (not all '0' read back). Since a page is swapped, it will > be now marked "automatically" as idle as per your proposal, even if userspace > never marked it explicity before. This would be quite confusing/ambiguous. OK, I see. I guess the primary question I have is how do you distinguish Idle page which got unmapped and faulted in again from swapped out page and refaulted - including the time the pte is not present. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
