Date:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:58:51 +0900
From:   Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...sung.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@...il.com>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, adobriyan@...il.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, minchan@...nel.org,
        ngupta@...are.org, sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] meminfo: introduce extra meminfo



On 2020년 03월 17일 23:37, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 12:04:46PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>> 2020년 3월 16일 (월) 오후 5:32, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>님이 작성:
>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 01:07:08PM +0900, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2020년 03월 14일 02:48, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 04:19:36PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>>>> +CC linux-api, please include in future versions as well
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/11/20 4:44 AM, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> /proc/meminfo or show_free_areas does not show full system wide memory
>>>>>>> usage status. There seems to be huge hidden memory especially on
>>>>>>> embedded Android system. Because it usually have some HW IP which do not
>>>>>>> have internal memory and use common DRAM memory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Android system, most of those hidden memory seems to be vmalloc pages
>>>>>>> , ion system heap memory, graphics memory, and memory for DRAM based
>>>>>>> compressed swap storage. They may be shown in other node but it seems to
>>>>>>> useful if /proc/meminfo shows all those extra memory information. And
>>>>>>> show_mem also need to print the info in oom situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fortunately vmalloc pages is alread shown by commit 97105f0ab7b8
>>>>>>> ("mm: vmalloc: show number of vmalloc pages in /proc/meminfo"). Swap
>>>>>>> memory using zsmalloc can be seen through vmstat by commit 91537fee0013
>>>>>>> ("mm: add NR_ZSMALLOC to vmstat") but not on /proc/meminfo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Memory usage of specific driver can be various so that showing the usage
>>>>>>> through upstream meminfo.c is not easy. To print the extra memory usage
>>>>>>> of a driver, introduce following APIs. Each driver needs to count as
>>>>>>> atomic_long_t.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int register_extra_meminfo(atomic_long_t *val, int shift,
>>>>>>>                      const char *name);
>>>>>>> int unregister_extra_meminfo(atomic_long_t *val);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Currently register ION system heap allocator and zsmalloc pages.
>>>>>>> Additionally tested on local graphics driver.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i.e) cat /proc/meminfo | tail -3
>>>>>>> IonSystemHeap:    242620 kB
>>>>>>> ZsPages:          203860 kB
>>>>>>> GraphicDriver:    196576 kB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i.e.) show_mem on oom
>>>>>>> <6>[  420.856428]  Mem-Info:
>>>>>>> <6>[  420.856433]  IonSystemHeap:32813kB ZsPages:44114kB GraphicDriver::13091kB
>>>>>>> <6>[  420.856450]  active_anon:957205 inactive_anon:159383 isolated_anon:0
>>>>>> I like the idea and the dynamic nature of this, so that drivers not present
>>>>>> wouldn't add lots of useless zeroes to the output.
>>>>>> It also makes simpler the decisions of "what is important enough to need its own
>>>>>> meminfo entry".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The suggestion for hunting per-driver /sys files would only work if there was a
>>>>>> common name to such files so once can find(1) them easily.
>>>>>> It also doesn't work for the oom/failed alloc warning output.
>>>>> Of course there is a need to have a stable name for such an output, this
>>>>> is why driver/core should be responsible for that and not drivers authors.
>>>>>
>>>>> The use case which I had in mind slightly different than to look after OOM.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm interested to optimize our drivers in their memory footprint to
>>>>> allow better scale in SR-IOV mode where one device creates many separate
>>>>> copies of itself. Those copies easily can take gigabytes of RAM due to
>>>>> the need to optimize for high-performance networking. Sometimes the
>>>>> amount of memory and not HW is actually limits the scale factor.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I would imagine this feature being used as an aid for the driver
>>>>> developers and not for the runtime decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> My 2-cents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your comment.
>>>> My idea, I think, may be able to help each driver developer to see their memory usage.
>>>> But I'd like to see overall memory usage through the one node.
>>> It is more than enough :).
>>>
>>>> Let me know if you have more comment.
>>>> I am planning to move my logic to be shown on a new node, /proc/meminfo_extra at v2.
>>> Can you please help me to understand how that file will look like once
>>> many drivers will start to use this interface? Will I see multiple
>>> lines?
>>>
>>> Something like:
>>> driver1 ....
>>> driver2 ....
>>> driver3 ....
>>> ...
>>> driver1000 ....
>>>
>>> How can we extend it to support subsystems core code?
>> I do not have a plan to support subsystem core.
> Fair enough.
>
>> I just want the /proc/meminfo_extra to show size of alloc_pages APIs
>> rather than slub size. It is to show hidden huge memory.
>> I think most of drivers do not need to register its size to
>> /proc/meminfo_extra because
>> drivers usually use slub APIs and rather than alloc_pages APIs.
>> /proc/slabinfo helps for slub size in detail.
> The problem with this statement that the drivers that consuming memory
> are the ones who are interested in this interface. I can be not accurate
> here, but I think that all RDMA and major NICs will want to get this
> information.
>
> On my machine, it is something like 6 devices.
>
>> As a candidate of /proc/meminfo_extra, I hope only few drivers using
>> huge memory like over 100 MB got from alloc_pages APIs.
>>
>> As you say, if there is a static node on /sys for each driver, it may
>> be used for all the drivers.
>> I think sysfs class way may be better to show categorized sum size.
>> But /proc/meminfo_extra can be another way to show those hidden huge memory.
>> I mean your idea and my idea is not exclusive.
> It is just better to have one interface.
Sorry about that one interface.

If we need to create a-meminfo_extra-like node on /sysfs, then
I think further discussion with more people is needed.
If there is no logical problem on creating /proc/meminfo_extra,
I'd like to prepare v2 patch and get more comment on that v2
patch. Please help again for further discussion.

Thank you
>
>> Thank you
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>> Thank you
>>>> Jaewon Kim
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists