Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: zswap: calculate limits only when updated

[David Hildenbrand]

On 15.04.24 20:30, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 8:10 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 13.04.24 03:05, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 12:48 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 10.04.24 02:52, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> > > > > [..]
> > > > > > > Do we need a separate notifier chain for totalram_pages() updates?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good question. I actually might have the requirement to notify some arch
> > > > > > code (s390x) from virtio-mem when fake adding/removing memory, and
> > > > > > already wondered how to best wire that up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe we can squeeze that into the existing notifier chain, but needs a
> > > > > > bit of thought.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the late reply, I had to think about this a bit.
> > > >
> > > > > Do you mean by adding new actions (e.g. MEM_FAKE_ONLINE,
> > > > > MEM_FAKE_OFFLINE), or by reusing the existing actions (MEM_ONLINE,
> > > > > MEM_OFFLINE, etc).
> > > >
> > > > At least for virtio-mem, I think we could have a MEM_ONLINE/MEM_OFFLINE
> > > > that prepare the whole range belonging to the Linux memory block
> > > > (/sys/devices/system/memory/memory...) to go online, and then have
> > > > something like MEM_SOFT_ONLINE/MEM_SOFT_OFFLINE or
> > > > ENABLE_PAGES/DISABLE_PAGES ... notifications when parts become usable
> > > > (!PageOffline, handed to the buddy) or unusable (PageOffline, removed
> > > > from the buddy).
> > > >
> > > > There are some details to be figured out, but it could work.
> > > >
> > > > And as virtio-mem currently operates in pageblock granularity (e.g., 2
> > > > MiB), but frequently handles multiple contiguous pageblocks within a
> > > > Linux memory block, it's not that bad.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But the issue I see with ballooning is that we operate here often on
> > > > page granularity. While we could optimize some cases, we might get quite
> > > > some overhead from all the notifications. Alternatively, we could send a
> > > > list of pages, but it won't win a beauty contest.
> > > >
> > > > I think the main issue is that, for my purpose (virtio-mem on s390x), I
> > > > need to notify about the exact memory ranges (so I can reinitialize
> > > > stuff in s390x code when memory gets effectively re-enabled). For other
> > > > cases (total pages changing), we don't need the memory ranges, but only
> > > > the "summary" -- or a notification afterwards that the total pages were
> > > > just changed quite a bit.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for shedding some light on this. Although I am not familiar
> > > with ballooning, sending notifications on page granularity updates
> > > sounds terrible. It seems like this is not as straightforward as I had
> > > anticipated.
> > >
> > > I was going to take a stab at this, but given that the motivation is a
> > > minor optimization on the zswap side, I will probably just give up :)
> >
> > Oh no, so I have to do the work! ;)
> >
> > > For now, I will drop this optimization from the series for now, and I
> > > can revisit it if/when notifications for totalram_pages() are
> > > implemented at some point. Please CC me if you do so for the s390x use
> > > case :)
> >
> > I primarily care about virtio-mem resizing VM memory and adjusting
> > totalram_pages(), memory ballooning for that is rather a hack for that
> > use case ... so we're in agreement :)
> >
> > Likely we'd want two notification mechanisms, but no matter how I look
> > at it, it's all a bit ugly.
>
> I am assuming you mean one with exact memory ranges for your s390x use
> case, and one high-level mechanism for totalram_pages() updates -- or
> did I miss the point?

No, that's it.

> I am interested to see how page granularity updates would be handled
> in this case. Perhaps they are only relevant for the high-level
> mechanism? In that case, I suppose we can batch updates and notify
> once when a threshold is crossed or something.

Yes, we'd batch updates.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb