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:   Tue, 21 May 2019 08:34:21 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@google.com>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/7] introduce memory hinting API for external process
Message-ID: <20190521063421.GG32329@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20190520035254.57579-1-minchan@kernel.org>
 <20190521014452.GA6738@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190521014452.GA6738@bombadil.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

[linux-api]

On Mon 20-05-19 18:44:52, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 12:52:47PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > IMHO we should spell it out that this patchset complements MADV_WONTNEED
> > and MADV_FREE by adding non-destructive ways to gain some free memory
> > space. MADV_COLD is similar to MADV_WONTNEED in a way that it hints the
> > kernel that memory region is not currently needed and should be reclaimed
> > immediately; MADV_COOL is similar to MADV_FREE in a way that it hints the
> > kernel that memory region is not currently needed and should be reclaimed
> > when memory pressure rises.
> 
> Do we tear down page tables for these ranges?  That seems like a good
> way of reclaiming potentially a substantial amount of memory.

I do not think we can in general because this is a non-destructive
operation. So at least we cannot tear down anonymous ptes (they will
turn into swap entries).

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs