Re: zsmalloc defrag (Was: [PATCH] mm: remove compressed copy fromzram in-memory)

[Ric Mason]

Hi Minchan,
On 04/10/2013 08:50 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 01:25:45PM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > > From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Subject: Re: zsmalloc defrag (Was: [PATCH] mm: remove compressed copy from zram in-memory)
> > >
> > > Hi Dan,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:32:38AM -0700, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > > > > From: Minchan Kim [mailto:minchan@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 12:01 AM
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] mm: remove compressed copy from zram in-memory
> > > > (patch removed)
> > > >
> > > > > Fragment ratio is almost same but memory consumption and compile time
> > > > > is better. I am working to add defragment function of zsmalloc.
> > > > Hi Minchan --
> > > >
> > > > I would be very interested in your design thoughts on
> > > > how you plan to add defragmentation for zsmalloc.  In
> > > What I can say now about is only just a word "Compaction".
> > > As you know, zsmalloc has a transparent handle so we can do whatever
> > > under user. Of course, there is a tradeoff between performance
> > > and memory efficiency. I'm biased to latter for embedded usecase.
> > Have you designed or implemented this yet?  I have a couple
> > of concerns:
> Not yet implemented but just had a time to think about it, simply.
> So surely, there are some obstacle so I want to uncase the code and
> number after I make a prototype/test the performance.
> Of course, if it has a severe problem, will drop it without wasting
> many guys's time.
>
> > 1) The handle is transparent to the "user", but it is still a form
> >     of a "pointer" to a zpage.  Are you planning on walking zram's
> >     tables and changing those pointers?  That may be OK for zram
> >     but for more complex data structures than tables (as in zswap
> >     and zcache) it may not be as easy, due to races, or as efficient
> >     because you will have to walk potentially very large trees.
> Rough concept is following as.
>
> I'm considering for zsmalloc to return transparent fake handle
> but we have to maintain it with real one.
> It could be done in zsmalloc internal so there isn't any race we should consider.
>
>
> > 2) Compaction in the kernel is heavily dependent on page migration
> >     and page migration is dependent on using flags in the struct page.
> >     There's a lot of code in those two code modules and there
> >     are going to be a lot of implementation differences between
> >     compacting pages vs compacting zpages.
> Compaction of kernel is never related to zsmalloc's one.
>
> > I'm also wondering if you will be implementing "variable length
> > zspages".  Without that, I'm not sure compaction will help
> > enough.  (And that is a good example of the difference between
> Why do you think so?
> variable lengh zspage could be further step to improve but it's not
> only a solution to solve fragmentation.
>
> > the kernel page compaction design/code and zspage compaction.)
> > > > particular, I am wondering if your design will also
> > > > handle the requirements for zcache (especially for
> > > > cleancache pages) and perhaps also for ramster.
> > > I don't know requirements for cleancache pages but compaction is
> > > general as you know well so I expect you can get a benefit from it
> > > if you are concern on memory efficiency but not sure it's valuable
> > > to compact cleancache pages for getting more slot in RAM.
> > > Sometime, just discarding would be much better, IMHO.
> > Zcache has page reclaim.  Zswap has zpage reclaim.  I am
> > concerned that these continue to work in the presence of
> > compaction.   With no reclaim at all, zram is a simpler use
> > case but if you implement compaction in a way that can't be
> > used by either zcache or zswap, then zsmalloc is essentially
> > forking.
> Don't go too far. If it's really problem for zswap and zcache,
> maybe, we could add it optionally.
>
> > > > In https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/27/501 I suggested it
> > > > would be good to work together on a common design, but
> > > > you didn't reply.  Are you thinking that zsmalloc
> > > I saw the thread but explicit agreement is really matter?
> > > I believe everybody want it although they didn't reply. :)
> > >
> > > You can make the design/post it or prototyping/post it.
> > > If there are some conflit with something in my brain,
> > > I will be happy to feedback. :)
> > >
> > > Anyway, I think my above statement "COMPACTION" would be enough to
> > > express my current thought to avoid duplicated work and you can catch up.
> > >
> > > I will get around to it after LSF/MM.
> > >
> > > > improvements should focus only on zram, in which case
> > > Just focusing zsmalloc.
> > Right.  Again, I am asking if you are changing zsmalloc in
> > a way that helps zram but hurts zswap and makes it impossible
> > for zcache to ever use the improvements to zsmalloc.
> As I said, I'm biased to memory efficiency rather than performace.
> Of course, severe performance drop is disaster but small drop will
> be acceptable for memory-efficiency concerning systems.
>
> > If so, that's fine, but please make it clear that is your goal.
> Simple, help memory hungry system. :)

Which kind of system are memory hungry?

> > > > we may -- and possibly should -- end up with a different
> > > > allocator for frontswap-based/cleancache-based compression
> > > > in zcache (and possibly zswap)?
> > > > I'm just trying to determine if I should proceed separately
> > > > with my design (with Bob Liu, who expressed interest) or if
> > > > it would be beneficial to work together.
> > > Just posting and if it affects zsmalloc/zram/zswap and goes the way
> > > I don't want, I will involve the discussion because our product uses
> > > zram heavily and consider zswap, too.
> > >
> > > I really appreciate your enthusiastic collaboration model to find
> > > optimal solution!
> > My goal is to have compression be an integral part of Linux
> > memory management.  It may be tied to a config option, but
> > the goal is that distros turn it on by default.  I don't think
> > zsmalloc meets that objective yet, but it may be fine for
> > your needs.  If so it would be good to understand exactly why
> > it doesn't meet the other zproject needs.
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
> > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/