On 2023/4/23 17:49, Hillf Danton wrote:
On 23 Apr 2023 16:35:26 +0800 Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 2023/4/23 16:12, Hillf Danton wrote:
On 23 Apr 2023 14:08:49 +0800 Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 2023/4/22 13:18, Hillf Danton wrote:
On 21 Apr 2023 15:12:45 -0700 Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Add a variant of folio_lock() that can timeout. This is useful to
avoid unbounded waits for the page lock in kcompactd.
Given no mutex_lock_timeout() (perhaps because timeout makes no sense for
spinlock), I suspect your fix lies in the right layer. If waiting for
page under IO causes trouble for you, another simpler option is make
IO faster (perhaps all you can do) for instance. If kcompactd is waken
up by kswapd, waiting for slow IO is the right thing to do.
A bit out of topic. That is almost our original inital use scenarios for
Thanks for taking a look.
EROFS [1] although we didn't actually test Chrome OS, there lies four
points:
1) 128kb compressed size unit is not suitable for memory constraint
workload, especially memory pressure scenarios, that amplify both I/Os
and memory footprints (EROFS was initially optimized with 4KiB
pclusters);
Feel free to take another one at 2M THP [1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230418191313.268131-1-hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx/
Honestly I don't catch your point here, does THP has some relationship with
THP tests ended without the help of timeout helpers.
this? Almost all smartphones (but I don't know Chromebook honestly) didn't
use THP at that time.
2) If you turn into a small compressed size (e.g. 4 KiB), some fs behaves
ineffective since its on-disk compressed index isn't designed to be
random accessed (another in-memory cache for random access) so you have
to count one by one to calculate physical data offset if cache miss;
3) compressed data needs to take extra memory during I/O (especially
low-ended devices) that makes the cases worse and our camera app
workloads once cannot be properly launched under heavy memory pressure,
but in order to keep user best experience we have to keep as many as
apps active so that it's hard to kill apps directly. So inplace I/O +
decompression is needed in addition to small compressed sizes for
overall performance.
Frankly nowadays I have no interest in running linux with <16M RAM for example.
Our cases are tested on 2016-2018 devices under 3 to 6 GB memory if you
take a glance at the original ATC paper, the page 9 (section 5.1) wrote:
"However, it costed too much CPU and memory resources, and when trying to
run a camera application, the phone froze for tens of seconds before it
finally failed."
I have no idea how 16M RAM here comes from but smartphones doesn't have
such limited memory. In brief, if you runs few app, you have few problem.
but as long as you keeps more apps in background (and running), then the
memory will eventually suffer pressure.
Given no complaints in case of running 16 apps with 1G RAM for instance,
what is the point of running 256 apps with the same RAM? And adding changes
I don't think the `ill-designed` word is helpful to the overall topic.
I'm not sure if my description is confusing:
1) First, I never said running 256 apps with the same RAM. In fact, in 2018
there are indeed some phones still with 1G RAM, if my memory is correct,
such 1G phones couldn't run 16 latest mainstream super apps at the same time
smoothly, and, previously compression will lead this worse. Even such
phones cannot use a full Android but a minimized Android Go [1] instead.
The worst case I've heard on phones with 1G RAM would be "after you checked
a new message from friends on a superapp by switch out, another previous
one with some incomplete registeration form could be killed and you have
to restart and refill the form."
2) apps and baseos can be upgraded over time, especially apps, since Android
ecosystem is open. It's hard to get over it.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
because of ill designed phone products?
[1] https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/androidgo
