From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Jim Schutt <jaschut@sandia.gov>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: excessive CPU utilization by isolate_freepages? Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:13:01 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <4FEBAF9D.2000008@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1206271745170.9552@chino.kir.corp.google.com> On 06/27/2012 08:52 PM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Rik van Riel wrote: >> Another possibility is that compaction is succeeding every time, >> but since we always start scanning all the way at the beginning >> and end of each zone, we waste a lot of CPU time rescanning the >> same pages (that we just filled up with moved pages) to see if >> any are free. >> >> In short, due to the way compaction behaves right now, >> compaction + isolate_freepages are essentially quadratic. >> >> What we need to do is remember where we left off after a >> successful compaction, so we can continue the search there >> at the next invocation. >> > > So when the free and migration scanners meet and compact_finished() == > COMPACT_CONTINUE, loop around to the start of the zone and continue until > you reach the pfn that it was started at? Seems appropriate. Exactly. It would entail changes to struct compact_control, where we have to remember whether we started at the top of the zone or not (for a full compaction, ie order==-1 we might). For a compaction of order >0, we would remember the last pfn where isolate_freepages isolated a page, and start isolating below that. If we fail to isolate pages when cc->free_pfn and cc->migrate_pfn meet, we may want to restart from the top for a second round. If they meet again after the second round, we have really failed, and compaction will be deferred. As long as compaction succeeds, we will slowly move through the zone, with each invocation of compaction scanning a little more. For cc->migrate_pfn it is probably fine to start from the beginning of the zone each time. -- All rights reversed
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> To: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Jim Schutt <jaschut@sandia.gov>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: excessive CPU utilization by isolate_freepages? Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:13:01 -0400 [thread overview] Message-ID: <4FEBAF9D.2000008@redhat.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1206271745170.9552@chino.kir.corp.google.com> On 06/27/2012 08:52 PM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2012, Rik van Riel wrote: >> Another possibility is that compaction is succeeding every time, >> but since we always start scanning all the way at the beginning >> and end of each zone, we waste a lot of CPU time rescanning the >> same pages (that we just filled up with moved pages) to see if >> any are free. >> >> In short, due to the way compaction behaves right now, >> compaction + isolate_freepages are essentially quadratic. >> >> What we need to do is remember where we left off after a >> successful compaction, so we can continue the search there >> at the next invocation. >> > > So when the free and migration scanners meet and compact_finished() == > COMPACT_CONTINUE, loop around to the start of the zone and continue until > you reach the pfn that it was started at? Seems appropriate. Exactly. It would entail changes to struct compact_control, where we have to remember whether we started at the top of the zone or not (for a full compaction, ie order==-1 we might). For a compaction of order >0, we would remember the last pfn where isolate_freepages isolated a page, and start isolating below that. If we fail to isolate pages when cc->free_pfn and cc->migrate_pfn meet, we may want to restart from the top for a second round. If they meet again after the second round, we have really failed, and compaction will be deferred. As long as compaction succeeds, we will slowly move through the zone, with each invocation of compaction scanning a little more. For cc->migrate_pfn it is probably fine to start from the beginning of the zone each time. -- All rights reversed -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-28 1:13 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-06-27 21:59 excessive CPU utilization by isolate_freepages? Jim Schutt 2012-06-27 21:59 ` Jim Schutt 2012-06-27 22:35 ` Mark Nelson 2012-06-27 22:35 ` Mark Nelson 2012-06-27 23:59 ` Minchan Kim 2012-06-27 23:59 ` Minchan Kim 2012-06-28 0:28 ` Rik van Riel 2012-06-28 0:28 ` Rik van Riel 2012-06-28 0:52 ` David Rientjes 2012-06-28 0:52 ` David Rientjes 2012-06-28 0:58 ` Minchan Kim 2012-06-28 0:58 ` Minchan Kim 2012-06-28 1:06 ` David Rientjes 2012-06-28 1:06 ` David Rientjes 2012-06-28 1:18 ` Minchan Kim 2012-06-28 1:18 ` Minchan Kim 2012-06-28 1:13 ` Rik van Riel [this message] 2012-06-28 1:13 ` Rik van Riel 2012-06-28 0:55 ` Minchan Kim 2012-06-28 0:55 ` Minchan Kim 2012-06-28 11:36 ` Mel Gorman 2012-06-28 11:36 ` Mel Gorman 2012-06-28 15:30 ` Jim Schutt 2012-06-28 15:30 ` Jim Schutt
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=4FEBAF9D.2000008@redhat.com \ --to=riel@redhat.com \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=jaschut@sandia.gov \ --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \ --cc=minchan@kernel.org \ --cc=rientjes@google.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.