On Thu 09-11-23 18:29:03, Huan Yang wrote: > HI Michal Hocko, > > Thanks for your suggestion. > > 在 2023/11/9 17:57, Michal Hocko 写道: > > [Some people who received this message don't often get email from mhocko@xxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > > > On Thu 09-11-23 11:38:56, Huan Yang wrote: > > [...] > > > > If so, is it better only to reclaim private anonymous pages explicitly? > > > Yes, in practice, we only proactively compress anonymous pages and do not > > > want to touch file pages. > > If that is the case and this is mostly application centric (which you > > seem to be suggesting) then why don't you use madvise(MADV_PAGEOUT) > > instead. > Madvise may not be applicable in this scenario.(IMO) > > This feature is aimed at a core goal, which is to compress the anonymous > pages > of frozen applications. > > How to detect that an application is frozen and determine which pages can be > safely reclaimed is the responsibility of the policy part. > > Setting madvise for an application is an active behavior, while the above > policy > is a passive approach.(If I misunderstood, please let me know if there is a > better > way to set madvise.) You are proposing an extension to the pro-active reclaim interface so this is an active behavior pretty much by definition. So I am really not following you here. Your agent can simply scan the address space of the application it is going to "freeze" and call pidfd_madvise(MADV_PAGEOUT) on the private memory is that is really what you want/need. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
