On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 12:12 PM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 12:55 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 4:37 AM Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Suren for looping in > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 4:39 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 2:47 PM Barry Song <21cnbao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 8:46 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri 16-08-24 07:48:01, gaoxu wrote: > > > > > > > Replace lruvec_add_folio with lruvec_add_folio_tail in the lru_lazyfree_fn: > > > > > > > 1. The lazy-free folio is added to the LRU_INACTIVE_FILE list. If it's > > > > > > > moved to the LRU tail, it allows for faster release lazy-free folio and > > > > > > > reduces the impact on file refault. > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been discussed when MADV_FREE was introduced. The question was > > > > > > whether this memory has a lower priority than other inactive memory that > > > > > > has been marked that way longer ago. Also consider several MADV_FREE > > > > > > users should they be LIFO from the reclaim POV? > > > > > > Thinking from the user's perspective, it seems to me that FIFO within > > > MADV_FREE'ed pages makes more sense. As a user I expect the longer a > > > MADV_FREE'ed page hasn't been touched, the chances are higher that it > > > may not be around anymore. > > > > > > > > > Hi Lokesh, > > Thanks! > > > > > > > The priority of this memory compared to other inactive memory that has been > > > > > marked for a longer time likely depends on the user's expectations - How soon > > > > > do users expect MADV_FREE to be reclaimed compared with old file folios. > > > > > > > > > > art guys moved to MADV_FREE from MADV_DONTNEED without any > > > > > useful performance data and reason in the changelog: > > > > > https://android-review.googlesource.com/c/platform/art/+/2633132 > > > > > > > > > > Since art is the Android Java heap, it can be quite large. This increases the > > > > > likelihood of packing the file LRU and reduces the chances of reclaiming > > > > > anonymous memory, which could result in more file re-faults while helping > > > > > anonymous folio persist longer in memory. > > > > > > Individual heaps of android apps are not big, and even in there we > > > don't call MADV_FREE on the entire heap. > > > > How do you define "Individual heaps of android apps", do you know the usual > > total_size for a phone with memory pressure by running multiple apps and how > > much for each app? > > > Every app is a separate process and therefore has its own private ART > heap. Those numbers that you are asking vary drastically. But here's > what I can tell you: > > Max heap size for an app is 512MB typically. But it is rarely entirely On my phone, I am seeing a VMA named "dalvik-main space", its virtual address is 0x14000000-0x34000000 and its size is 0x20000000 (512MB). I guess this is exactly the ART heap we are talking about? > used. Typical heap usage is 50MB to 250MB. But as I said, not all of Thank you! Considering we might have dozens of apps running in the background and foreground, will the total size of the ART heaps on a phone still be large? > it is MADV_FREE'ed. Only those pages which are freed after GC > compaction are. Are you saying that some memory in the ART heap is marked with MADV_DONTNEED instead of MADV_FREE? If so, when did this happen? Alternatively, is my understanding incorrect and you are referring to memory that is neither MADV_DONTNEED nor MADV_FREE? > > > > > > > > > > I am really curious why art guys have moved to MADV_FREE if we have > > > > > an approach to reach them. > > > > > > Honestly, it makes little sense as a user that calling MADV_FREE on an > > > anonymous mapping will impact file LRU. That was never the intention > > > with our ART change. > > > > > > > This is just how MADV_FREE is implemented in the kernel, this kind of lazyfree > > anon folios are moved to file but *NOT* anon LRU. > > > > > From our perspective, once a set of pages are MADV_FREE'ed, they are > > > like a page-cache. It gives an opportunity, without hurting memory > > > use, to avoid overhead of page-faults, which happen frequently after > > > GC is done on running apps. > > > > > > IMHO, within LRU_INACTIVE_FILE, MADV_FREE'ed pages should be > > > prioritized for reclamation over file ones. > > > > This is exactly what this patch is doing, putting lazyfree anon folios > > to the tail of file LRU so that they can be reclaimed earlier than file > > folios. But the question is: is the requirement "MADV_FREE'ed pages > > should be prioritized for reclamation over file ones" universally true for > > all other non-Android users? > > > That's definitely an important question to get answered. But putting > my users hat on again, by explicitly MADV_FREE'ing we ask for that > behavior. IMHO, MADV_FREE'ed pages should be the first ones to be > reclaimed on memory pressure. Thanks for clarification! I'd also like to collect some performance data with this patch. > > > > > > > > Adding Lokesh. > > > > Lokesh, could you please comment on the reasoning behind the above > > > > mentioned change? > > > > > > Adding Nicolas as well, in case he wants to add something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Michal Hocko > > > > > > SUSE Labs > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Barry
