Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 18:23:04 +0100
From:   Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
CC:     Vijayanand Jitta <vjitta@codeaurora.org>,
        vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@gmail.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-team@fb.com>, Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: introduce NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES
Message-ID: <20180425172258.GA8052@castle>
References: <08524819-14ef-81d0-fa90-d7af13c6b9d5@suse.cz>
 <20180411135624.GA24260@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
 <46dbe2a5-e65f-8b72-f835-0210bc445e52@suse.cz>
 <20180412145702.GB30714@castle.DHCP.thefacebook.com>
 <CAOaiJ-=JtFWNPqdtf+5uim0-LcPE9zSDZmocAa_6K3yGpW2fCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <69b4dcd8-1925-e0e8-d9b4-776f3405b769@codeaurora.org>
 <20180425125211.GB3410@castle>
 <db71bf8f-0c76-e304-25c3-d22f1e0d71e5@suse.cz>
 <20180425164845.GA7223@castle>
 <7fc2986e-b867-eb32-9124-d10ef6c1a3a3@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7fc2986e-b867-eb32-9124-d10ef6c1a3a3@suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2018 17:23:19.4086 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6d817950-f118-4caf-1d95-08d5aad13ed6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN2PR15MB1087
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2018-04-25_05:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 07:02:42PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 04/25/2018 06:48 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 05:47:26PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 04/25/2018 02:52 PM, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 09:19:29AM +0530, Vijayanand Jitta wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Idk, I don't like the idea of adding a counter outside of the vm counters
> >>>>>>>> infrastructure, and I definitely wouldn't touch the exposed
> >>>>>>>> nr_slab_reclaimable and nr_slab_unreclaimable fields.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We would be just making the reported values more precise wrt reality.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It depends on if we believe that only slab memory can be reclaimable
> >>>>>> or not. If yes, this is true, otherwise not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My guess is that some drivers (e.g. networking) might have buffers,
> >>>>>> which are reclaimable under mempressure, and are allocated using
> >>>>>> the page allocator. But I have to look closer...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One such case I have encountered is that of the ION page pool. The page pool
> >>>>> registers a shrinker. When not in any memory pressure page pool can go high
> >>>>> and thus cause an mmap to fail when OVERCOMMIT_GUESS is set. I can send
> >>>>> a patch to account ION page pool pages in NR_INDIRECTLY_RECLAIMABLE_BYTES.
> >>
> >> FYI, we have discussed this at LSF/MM and agreed to try the kmalloc
> >> reclaimable caches idea. The existing counter could then remain for page
> >> allocator users such as ION. It's a bit weird to have it in bytes and
> >> not pages then, IMHO. What if we hid it from /proc/vmstat now so it
> >> doesn't become ABI, and later convert it to page granularity and expose
> >> it under a name such as "nr_other_reclaimable" ?
> > 
> > I've nothing against hiding it from /proc/vmstat, as long as we keep
> > the counter in place and the main issue resolved.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> > Maybe it's better to add nr_reclaimable = nr_slab_reclaimable + nr_other_reclaimable,
> > which will have a simpler meaning that nr_other_reclaimable (what is other?).
> 
> "other" can be changed, sure. nr_reclaimable is possible if we change
> slab to adjust that counter as well - vmstat code doesn't support
> arbitrary calculations when printing.

Sure, but even just hiding a value isn't that easy now.
So we have to touch the vmstat printing code anyway.

Thanks!