Re: [RFC PATCH v3] mm/vmpressure: scale window size based on machine memory

[David Hildenbrand (Arm)]

On 3/5/26 05:30, Benjamin Lee McQueen wrote:
> the vmpressure window size has been fixed at 512 pages
> (SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * 16), ever since the file's inception. a TODO in
> the file notes that the vmpressure window size should be scaled
> similarly to vmstat's scaling, via machine size.
> 
> the problem with fixed window size on large memory systems:
> 
> the window fills after 512 pages (SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * 16) of scanned
> pages. on a 256GB system that is 0.00076% of total memory. the
> reclaimer works in chunks of 32 pages (SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX), so the
> window fills up after 16 reclaim cycles. here, a single (or more)
> bad reclaim cycle which reports false info has a considerable effect
> on the scanned/reclaim ratio, producing an incorrect reading.
> 
> a larger window however, is *potentially* prone to some additional
> notification latency, as more pages must be scanned before the ratio
> is calculated.
> 
> this is what we consider a false positive; a notification that
> doesn't correctly represent the current sustained memory pressure.
> 
> as for issues with why false positives are bad: applications or even
> maybe the system listening for these notifications are woken up
> unnecessarily and may perform actions that aren't supposed to happen,
> instead of being in coherence with the actual sustained memory
> pressure.
> 
> i did some testing, as well.
> 
> the testing was performed on ONLY a 9GB VM and nothing else.
> window sizes corresponding to larger machine memory were set manually
> via a debugfs knob, so my testing may have been corrupted as i only
> had 9GB on the VM, and this doesn't correctly test on larger systems,
> but it is the best i am able to do.
> 
> vmpressure_calc_level() was instrumented with a tracepoint emitting
> the raw pressure value. a controlled workload (2200MB allocation into
> a 2000MB cgroup with 500MB swap cap) was run at each window size.
> 1000 pressure samples were collected per run with 50 sample warmup
> discarded, repeated 5 times per window size.
> 
> the key metrics are stddev and cv% (coefficient of variation; stddev
> divided by mean pressure, expressed as a percentage). cv% is
> load-independent so it is a better measurement than stddev alone. a
> high cv% means the pressure signal is noisy relative to its own
> average; essentially the readings are unpredictable and unreliable.
> a low cv% means the signal is stable and trustworthy.
> 
> do take the data with a grain of salt, as i probably didn't test
> efficiently. this patch still needs to be tested on larger memory
> systems on real workloads. but if you think there is a better way
> for me or others to test this PLEASE REACH OUT!
> 
>   Window  RAM Equiv  avg stddev  avg cv%
>   512     stock      45.86       91.24%
>   1024    4GB        34.62       69.28%
>   1792    8GB         4.03        7.97%
>   2304    32GB        9.90       18.53%
>   2560    64GB        9.95       18.59%
>   3072    256GB      11.49       20.99%
> 
> the results show an improvement in quality as window size increases.
> stock at 512 pages shows a cv% of 91.24%, meaning the noise in the
> pressure signal is nearly as large as the signal itself; the readings
> are essentially unpredictable. at the 8GB equivalent window (1792
> pages) cv% drops to 7.97%, an 11x improvement in signal stability.
> 
> the data is consistent across 25 independent runs per window size
> (5 sweeps of 5 runs each). stddev and cv% barely move between
> sweeps, which gives me confidence the measurement is real and not
> an artifact of system state.
> 
> stddev increases slightly beyond the 8GB equivalent window, from
> 3.82 at win=1792 up to 11.49 at win=3072. this is expected and
> may also be an artifact of testing on a 9GB machine rather than
> real large-memory hardware. even at the 256GB equivalent window
> cv% is 20.99%; still a 4x improvement over stock's 91.24%.
> 
> since i only have a 9GB VM, i'm setting the window size manually
> to simulate larger machines, but the actual reclaim behavior of a
> 9GB system doesn't match what a real 256GB machine would do. on a
> real large-memory machine the reclaimer has proportionally more
> work to do and the window would fill with more representative data.
> this is another reason why testing on real large-memory hardware
> is needed.
> 
> the formula itself isn't like vmstat's threshold calculation, and
> uses total machine memory size (RAM), because reclaim costs grow
> with RAM, not CPU size or any other variables about the system.
> the formula's floor clause also ensures the existing 512 page
> window on smaller systems (512MB), and only affects larger systems.
> 
> if there are any other questions, i can try to answer them.
> 
> IF YOU CAN TEST OR COME UP WITH BETTER METHODS PLEASE REACH OUT!
> 
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Lee McQueen <mcq@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  mm/vmpressure.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmpressure.c b/mm/vmpressure.c
> index 3fbb86996c4d..0154df4d754e 100644
> --- a/mm/vmpressure.c
> +++ b/mm/vmpressure.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
>   */
>  
>  #include <linux/cgroup.h>
> +#include <linux/debugfs.h>
>  #include <linux/fs.h>
>  #include <linux/log2.h>
>  #include <linux/sched.h>
> @@ -29,14 +30,19 @@
>   * sizes can cause lot of false positives, but too big window size will
>   * delay the notifications.
>   *
> - * As the vmscan reclaimer logic works with chunks which are multiple of
> - * SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX, it makes sense to use it for the window size as well.
> - *
> - * TODO: Make the window size depend on machine size, as we do for vmstat
> - * thresholds. Currently we set it to 512 pages (2MB for 4KB pages).
> + * As of now, we use a logarithmic scale to scale the window based on
> + * machine RAM size.
>   */
> -static const unsigned long vmpressure_win = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * 16;
> +static unsigned long vmpressure_win;
> +
> +static int __init vmpressure_win_init(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned long mem = totalram_pages() >> (27 - PAGE_SHIFT);
>  
> +	vmpressure_win = SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX * max(16UL, (unsigned long)fls64(mem) * 8UL);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +core_initcall(vmpressure_win_init);
>  /*
>   * These thresholds are used when we account memory pressure through
>   * scanned/reclaimed ratio. The current values were chosen empirically. In

How does this interact with memory hotplug adding a lot of memory. Just
imagine you have a 4G VM and hotplug 128GB or more.

Would we want to get notified and adjust the vmpressure_win dynamically?

-- 
Cheers,

David