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;
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Zi Yan <ziy@nvidia.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] mm: Discard lazily freed pages when migrating
References: <20200228094954.GB3772@suse.de>
        <87h7z76lwf.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <20200302151607.GC3772@suse.de>
        <87zhcy5hoj.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
        <20200303080945.GX4380@dhcp22.suse.cz>
        <87o8td4yf9.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
        <20200303085805.GB4380@dhcp22.suse.cz>
        <87ftep4pzy.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
        <20200304095802.GE16139@dhcp22.suse.cz>
        <87blpc2wxj.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> <20200305104859.GG3772@suse.de>
Date:   Fri, 06 Mar 2020 12:05:35 +0800
In-Reply-To: <20200305104859.GG3772@suse.de> (Mel Gorman's message of "Thu, 5
        Mar 2020 10:48:59 +0000")
Message-ID: <87r1y6yvow.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 07:15:20PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> In which situation the cost to reconstruct MADV_FREE pages can be higher
>> than the cost to allocate file cache page and read from disk?  Heavy
>> contention on mmap_sem?
>> 
>
> MADV_FREE should be anonymous only
>
> if (behavior == MADV_FREE)
>                 return madvise_free_single_vma(vma, start, end);
>
> .....
>
> static int madvise_free_single_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>                         unsigned long start_addr, unsigned long end_addr)
> {
>         struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>         struct mmu_notifier_range range;
>         struct mmu_gather tlb;
>
>         /* MADV_FREE works for only anon vma at the moment */
>         if (!vma_is_anonymous(vma))
>                 return -EINVAL
>
> So the question is not applicable. For anonymous memory, the cost of
> updating a PTE is lower than allocating a page, zeroing it and updating
> the PTE.

Sorry for confusing.  The original question is NOT about comparing the
reconstruction cost between MADV_FREE anon pages and MADV_FREE file
pages, BUT about comparing the reconstruction cost between MADV_FREE
anon pages and ordinary clean file cache pages.  You can find more
details in conversation between Michal and me.

> It has been repeatedly stated now for almost a week that a semantic
> change to MADV_FREE should be based on a problem encountered by a real
> application that can benefit from the new semantics. I think the only
> concrete outcome has been that userspace potentially benefits if the total
> number of MADV_FREE pages is reported globally. Even that is marginal as
> smaps has the information to tell the difference between high RSS due to
> a memory leak and high RSS usage due to MADV_FREE. The /proc/vmstats for
> MADV_FREE are of marginal benefit given that they do not tell us much
> about the current number of MADV_FREE pages in the system.

Got it!  Thanks a lot for your patience and sharing.  That's very
helpful.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying