Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-40850-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240118120347.61817-1-ioworker0@gmail.com> <ZakqQyL9t2ffNUIf@tiehlicka>
 <CAK1f24k+=Sskotbct+yGxpDKNv=qyXPkww5i2kaqfzwaUVO_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZapwWuVTIDeI3W8A@tiehlicka> <CAK1f24m9oxciHsAht4-cCWo_NT7x+bkoXUO2HOwgMCr0OnwpcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <Za5yvjZWVyYjgyfh@tiehlicka> <CAK1f24n+pTw=7atKGAbgBh8qKOTBPq-BEV7ZkLcgN3P0n3h3ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK1f24=7fKU-+xRSOhrJrZ56=YoVfnkONZwNOJRS4yY4SzhANA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK1f24=7fKU-+xRSOhrJrZ56=YoVfnkONZwNOJRS4yY4SzhANA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Zach O'Keefe" <zokeefe@google.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 15:26:32 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAa6QmRLfwhyh66bVVakp__Rkzpkt3zq2kAe9F-KN5sdFdqLAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/madvise: add MADV_F_COLLAPSE_LIGHT to process_madvise()
To: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com, 
	songmuchun@bytedance.com, shy828301@gmail.com, peterx@redhat.com, 
	mknyszek@google.com, minchan@kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 6:35=E2=80=AFAM Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
>
> Hey Zach,
>
> What do you think about the semantic?

Hey Lance,

Sorry for the late reply.

I can see both sides of the argument; though I would argue that
"non-blocking" is equally as vague in this context. E.g. we'll "block" on
acquiring a number of different locks along the collapse path.

If you really want to talk about not entering direct reclaim /
compaction, then keeping with the sys/kernel/vm/thp notion of "defrag"
would be better, IMO. I don't feel that strongly about it though.

But I see you've provided some more use cases in another mail, so let
me pick up my thoughts over there.

Best,
Zach


> Thanks,
> Lance
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:14=E2=80=AFPM Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 9:50=E2=80=AFPM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> =
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat 20-01-24 10:09:32, Lance Yang wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Hey Michal,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your suggestion!
> > > >
> > > > It seems that the implementation should try but not too hard aligns=
 well
> > > > with my desired behavior.
> > >
> > > The problem I have with this semantic is that it is really hard to
> > > define and then stick with. Our implementation might change over time
> > > and what somebody considers good ATM might turn int "trying harder th=
an
> > > I wanted" later on.
> > >
> > > > Non-blocking in general is also a great idea.
> > > > Perhaps in the future, we can add a MADV_F_COLLAPSE_NOBLOCK
> > > > flag for scenarios where latency is extremely critical.
> > >
> > > Non blocking semantic is much easier to define and maintain. The actu=
al
> > > allocation/compaction implementation might change as well over time b=
ut
> > > the userspace at least knows that the request will not block waiting =
for
> > > any required resources.
> >
> > I appreciate your insights!
> >
> > It makes sense that a non-blocking semantic is easier to define and mai=
ntain,
> > providing userspace with the certainty that requests won=E2=80=99t be b=
locked.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lance
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michal Hocko
> > > SUSE Labs