On 28/10/2024 17:08, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 10:00 AM Usama Arif <usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 28/10/2024 16:33, Nhat Pham wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 5:23 AM Usama Arif <usamaarif642@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> I wonder if instead of having counters, it might be better to keep track >>>> of the number of zeropages currently stored in zeromap, similar to how >>>> zswap_same_filled_pages did it. It will be more complicated then this >>>> patch, but would give more insight of the current state of the system. >>>> >>>> Joshua (in CC) was going to have a look at that. >>> >>> I don't think one can substitute for the other. >> >> Yes agreed, they have separate uses and provide different information, but >> maybe wasteful to have both types of counters? They are counters so maybe >> dont consume too much resources but I think we should still think about >> it.. > > Not for or against here, but I would say that statement is debatable > at best for memcg stats :) > > Each new counter consumes 2 longs per-memcg per-CPU (see > memcg_vmstats_percpu), about 16 bytes, which is not a lot but it can > quickly add up with a large number of CPUs/memcgs/stats. > > Also, when flushing the stats we iterate all of them to propagate > updates from per-CPU counters. This is already a slowpath so adding > one stat is not a big deal, but again because we iterate all stats on > multiple CPUs (and sometimes on each node as well), the overall flush > latency becomes a concern sometimes. > > All of that is not to say we shouldn't add more memcg stats, but we > have to be mindful of the resources. Yes agreed! Plus the cost of incrementing similar counters (which ofcourse is also not much). Not trying to block this patch in anyway. Just think its a good point to discuss here if we are ok with both types of counters. If its too wasteful then which one we should have.
