Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231101230816.1459373-1-souravpanda@google.com>
 <20231101230816.1459373-2-souravpanda@google.com> <CAAPL-u_enAt7f9XUpwYNKkCOxz2uPbMrnE2RsoDFRcKwZdnRFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+CK2bC3rSGOoT9p_VmWMT8PBWYbp7Jo7Tp2FffGrJp-hX9xCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAPL-u-4D5YKuVOsyfpDUR+PbaA3MOJmNtznS77bposQSNPjnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1e99ff39-b1cf-48b8-8b6d-ba5391e00db5@redhat.com> <CA+CK2bDo6an35R8Nu-d99pbNQMEAw_t0yUm0Q+mJNwOJ1EdqQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <025ef794-91a9-4f0c-9eb6-b0a4856fa10a@redhat.com> <CA+CK2bDJDGaAK8ZmHtpr79JjJyNV5bM6TSyg84NLu2z+bCaEWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <99113dee-6d4d-4494-9eda-62b1faafdbae@redhat.com> <CA+CK2bApoY+trxxNW8FBnwyKnX6RVkrMZG4AcLEC2Nj6yZ6HEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <b71b28b9-1d41-4085-99f8-04d85892967e@redhat.com> <CA+CK2bCNRJXm2kEjsN=5a_M8twai4TJX3vpd72uOHFLGaDLg4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAPL-u_OWFLrrNxszm4D+mNiZY6cSb3=jez3XJHFtN6q05dU2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+CK2bBPBtAXFQAFUeF8nTxL_Sx926HgR3zLCj_6pKgbOGt8Wg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAPL-u9HHgPDj_xTTx=GqPg49DcrpGP1FF8zhaog=9awwu0f_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAPL-u9HHgPDj_xTTx=GqPg49DcrpGP1FF8zhaog=9awwu0f_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2023 21:06:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+CK2bAv6okHVigjCyDODm5VELi7gtQHOUy9kH5J4jTBpnGPxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] mm: report per-page metadata information
To:     Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Sourav Panda <souravpanda@google.com>, corbet@lwn.net,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, rafael@kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, mike.kravetz@oracle.com,
        muchun.song@linux.dev, rppt@kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org,
        chenlinxuan@uniontech.com, yang.yang29@zte.com.cn,
        tomas.mudrunka@gmail.com, bhelgaas@google.com, ivan@cloudflare.com,
        yosryahmed@google.com, hannes@cmpxchg.org, shakeelb@google.com,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com,
        adobriyan@gmail.com, vbabka@suse.cz, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com,
        surenb@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, willy@infradead.org,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 4:22=E2=80=AFPM Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 11:34=E2=80=AFAM Pasha Tatashin
> <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I could have sworn that I pointed that out in a previous version =
and
> > > > > requested to document that special case in the patch description.=
 :)
> > > >
> > > > Sounds, good we will document that parts of per-page may not be par=
t
> > > > of MemTotal.
> > >
> > > But this still doesn't answer how we can use the new PageMetadata
> > > field to help break down the runtime kernel overhead within MemUsed
> > > (MemTotal - MemFree).
> >
> > I am not sure it matters to the end users: they look at PageMetadata
> > with or without Page Owner, page_table_check, HugeTLB and it shows
> > exactly how much per-page overhead changed. Where the kernel allocated
> > that memory is not that important to the end user as long as that
> > memory became available to them.
> >
> > In addition, it is still possible to estimate the actual memblock part
> > of Per-page metadata by looking at /proc/zoneinfo:
> >
> > Memblock reserved per-page metadata: "present_pages - managed_pages"
>
> This assumes that all reserved memblocks are per-page metadata. As I

Right after boot, when all Per-page metadata is still from memblocks,
we could determine what part of the zone reserved memory is not
per-page, and use it later in our calculations.

> mentioned earlier, it is not a robust approach.
> > If there is something big that we will allocate in that range, we
> > should probably also export it in some form.
> >
> > If this field does not fit in /proc/meminfo due to not fully being
> > part of MemTotal, we could just keep it under nodeN/, as a separate
> > file, as suggested by Greg.
> >
> > However, I think it is useful enough to have an easy system wide view
> > for Per-page metadata.
>
> It is fine to have this as a separate, informational sysfs file under
> nodeN/, outside of meminfo. I just don't think as in the current
> implementation (where PageMetadata is a mixture of buddy and memblock
> allocations), it can help with the use case that motivates this
> change, i.e. to improve the breakdown of the kernel overhead.
> > > > > > are allocated), so what would be the best way to export page me=
tadata
> > > > > > without redefining MemTotal? Keep the new field in /proc/meminf=
o but
> > > > > > be ok that it is not part of MemTotal or do two counters? If we=
 do two
> > > > > > counters, we will still need to keep one that is a buddy alloca=
tor in
> > > > > > /proc/meminfo and the other one somewhere outside?
> > > > >
> > >
> > > I think the simplest thing to do now is to only report the buddy
> > > allocations of per-page metadata in meminfo.  The meaning of the new
> >
> > This will cause PageMetadata to be 0 on 99% of the systems, and
> > essentially become useless to the vast majority of users.
>
> I don't think it is a major issue. There are other fields (e.g. Zswap)
> in meminfo that remain 0 when the feature is not used.

Since we are going to use two independent interfaces
/proc/meminfo/PageMetadata and nodeN/page_metadata (in a separate file
as requested by Greg) How about if in /proc/meminfo we provide only
the buddy allocator part, and in nodeN/page_metadata we provide the
total per-page overhead in the given node that include memblock
reserves, and buddy allocator memory?

Pasha