[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpE60ZOcpFfE6MpF0PBujK9sfeRjbkhUa243Bo9QmOoARg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 08:08:45 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...gle.com>,
Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/7] mm: introduce MADV_COOL
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 1:19 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon 20-05-19 10:16:21, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [CC linux-api]
> >
> > On Mon 20-05-19 12:52:48, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > When a process expects no accesses to a certain memory range
> > > it could hint kernel that the pages can be reclaimed
> > > when memory pressure happens but data should be preserved
> > > for future use. This could reduce workingset eviction so it
> > > ends up increasing performance.
> > >
> > > This patch introduces the new MADV_COOL hint to madvise(2)
> > > syscall. MADV_COOL can be used by a process to mark a memory range
> > > as not expected to be used in the near future. The hint can help
> > > kernel in deciding which pages to evict early during memory
> > > pressure.
> >
> > I do not want to start naming fight but MADV_COOL sounds a bit
> > misleading. Everybody thinks his pages are cool ;). Probably MADV_COLD
> > or MADV_DONTNEED_PRESERVE.
>
> OK, I can see that you have used MADV_COLD for a different mode.
> So this one is effectively a non destructive MADV_FREE alternative
> so MADV_FREE_PRESERVE would sound like a good fit. Your MADV_COLD
> in other patch would then be MADV_DONTNEED_PRESERVE. Right?
>
I agree that naming them this way would be more in-line with the
existing API. Another good option IMO could be MADV_RECLAIM_NOW /
MADV_RECLAIM_LAZY which might explain a bit better what they do but
Michal's proposal is more consistent with the current API.
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists