Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/madvise: add MADV_F_COLLAPSE_LIGHT to process_madvise()

[Lance Yang]

How about MADV_F_COLLAPSE_NODEFRAG?

On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 7:27 AM Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 6:35 AM Lance Yang <ioworker0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 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 PM Lance Yang <ioworker0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 9:50 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> 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 than
> > > > 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 actual
> > > > allocation/compaction implementation might change as well over time but
> > > > 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 maintain,
> > > providing userspace with the certainty that requests won’t be blocked.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Lance
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Michal Hocko
> > > > SUSE Labs