Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1420768
| From | "ZhaoJunmin Zhao(Junmin)" <zhaojunmin@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim |
| Date | 2016-06-13 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rJza9-6dn-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rJuWR-3i5-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rJyH8-5Np-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
在 2016/6/13 19:50, Chen Feng 写道: > Hi Minchan, > > On 2016/6/13 15:50, Minchan Kim wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1480728 >> >> I sent per-process reclaim patchset three years ago. Then, last >> feedback from akpm was that he want to know real usecase scenario. >> >> Since then, I got question from several embedded people of various >> company "why it's not merged into mainline" and heard they have used >> the feature as in-house patch and recenlty, I noticed android from >> Qualcomm started to use it. >> >> Of course, our product have used it and released it in real procuct. >> >> Quote from Sangwoo Park <angwoo2.park@lge.com> >> Thanks for the data, Sangwoo! >> " >> - Test scenaro >> - platform: android >> - target: MSM8952, 2G DDR, 16G eMMC >> - scenario >> retry app launch and Back Home with 16 apps and 16 turns >> (total app launch count is 256) >> - result: >> resume count | cold launching count >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> vanilla | 85 | 171 >> perproc reclaim | 184 | 72 >> " >> >> Higher resume count is better because cold launching needs loading >> lots of resource data which takes above 15 ~ 20 seconds for some >> games while successful resume just takes 1~5 second. >> >> As perproc reclaim way with new management policy, we could reduce >> cold launching a lot(i.e., 171-72) so that it reduces app startup >> a lot. >> >> Another useful function from this feature is to make swapout easily >> which is useful for testing swapout stress and workloads. >> > Thanks Minchan. > > Yes, this is useful interface when there are memory pressure and let the userspace(Android) > to pick process for reclaim. We also take there series into our platform. > > But I have a question on the reduce app startup time. Can you also share your > theory(management policy) on how can the app reduce it's startup time? > > >> Thanks. Yes, In Huawei device, we use the interface now! Now according to procsss LRU state in ActivityManagerService, we can reclaim some process in proactive way. >> >> Cc: Redmond <u93410091@gmail.com> >> Cc: ZhaoJunmin Zhao(Junmin) <zhaojunmin@huawei.com> >> Cc: Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org> >> Cc: Juneho Choi <juno.choi@lge.com> >> Cc: Sangwoo Park <sangwoo2.park@lge.com> >> Cc: Chan Gyun Jeong <chan.jeong@lge.com> >> >> Minchan Kim (3): >> mm: vmscan: refactoring force_reclaim >> mm: vmscan: shrink_page_list with multiple zones >> mm: per-process reclaim >> >> Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt | 15 ++++ >> fs/proc/base.c | 1 + >> fs/proc/internal.h | 1 + >> fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 149 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/rmap.h | 4 + >> mm/vmscan.c | 85 ++++++++++++++++----- >> 6 files changed, 235 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) >> > > > . >
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-13 10:00 +0200
[PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-13 10:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> - 2016-06-13 17:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-15 02:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-06-16 13:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> - 2016-06-16 16:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-17 08:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> - 2016-06-17 09:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org> - 2016-06-17 10:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> - 2016-06-13 19:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 3/3] mm: per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-15 03:10 +0200
[PATCH v1 1/3] mm: vmscan: refactoring force_reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-13 10:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim Chen Feng <puck.chen@hisilicon.com> - 2016-06-13 14:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim "ZhaoJunmin Zhao(Junmin)" <zhaojunmin@huawei.com> - 2016-06-13 14:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-15 02:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org> - 2016-06-13 15:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2016-06-15 03:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] per-process reclaim Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org> - 2016-06-16 06:30 +0200
csiph-web