[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [page-reclaim] Augmented Page Reclaim
On Wed 10-02-21 00:12:38, Yu Zhao wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 01:32:58PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > > ======================
> > > Augmented Page Reclaim
> > > ======================
> > > We would like to share a work with you and see if there is enough
> > > interest to warrant a run for the mainline. This work is a part of
> > > result from a decade of research and experimentation in memory
> > > overcommit at Google: an augmented page reclaim that, in our
> > > experience, is performant, versatile and, more importantly, simple.
> >
> > Per discussion on IRC, maybe some additional background would help.
> And I'll add more details to the doc included in the tree once I've
> finished collecting feedback.

Please be as specific as possible early.

> > In looking at browser workloads on Chrome OS, we found that reclaim was:
> > 1) too expensive in terms of CPU usage
> We have two general metrics for this item: CPU time spent on page
> reclaim and (direct) page reclaim latency. CPU usage is important to
> everybody but latency is also quite important for phones, laptops,
> etc.

While this is true in general, more details would be more than welcome.
What is the source of the additional overhead and how does your work
address that?

This applies to most of other areas you are covering here and in the
original cover letter. Especially when you do not plan to build on an
existing code and rather plan to do things considerably differently.

I confess I haven't checked your repository but it would have been much
better to post a patch series
Michal Hocko

 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-10 14:23    [W:0.068 / U:1.608 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site