From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/11] mm, compaction: more reliably increase direct compaction priority
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 08:31:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d32f4619-e7a8-863a-bf94-4cbc0b452630@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160816060737.GC17448@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
On 08/16/2016 08:07 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
>> ---
>> mm/page_alloc.c | 18 +++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> index fb975cec3518..b28517b918b0 100644
>> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>> @@ -3155,13 +3155,8 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
>> * so it doesn't really make much sense to retry except when the
>> * failure could be caused by insufficient priority
>> */
>> - if (compaction_failed(compact_result)) {
>> - if (*compact_priority > MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY) {
>> - (*compact_priority)--;
>> - return true;
>> - }
>> - return false;
>> - }
>> + if (compaction_failed(compact_result))
>> + goto check_priority;
>>
>> /*
>> * make sure the compaction wasn't deferred or didn't bail out early
>> @@ -3185,6 +3180,15 @@ should_compact_retry(struct alloc_context *ac, int order, int alloc_flags,
>> if (compaction_retries <= max_retries)
>> return true;
>>
>> + /*
>> + * Make sure there is at least one attempt at the highest priority
>> + * if we exhausted all retries at the lower priorities
>> + */
>> +check_priority:
>> + if (*compact_priority > MIN_COMPACT_PRIORITY) {
>> + (*compact_priority)--;
>> + return true;
>> + }
>> return false;
>
> The only difference that this patch makes is increasing priority when
> COMPACT_PARTIAL(COMPACTION_SUCCESS) returns. In that case, we can
Hm it's true that I adjusted this patch from the previous version,
before realizing that PARTIAL is now SUCCESS.
> usually allocate high-order freepage so we would not enter here. Am I
> missing something? Is it really needed behaviour change?
It will likely be rare when this triggers, when compaction success
doesn't lead to allocation success due to parallel allocation activity.
> Thanks.
>
--
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:[~2016-08-16 6:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-10 9:12 [PATCH v6 00/11] make direct compaction more deterministic Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 01/11] mm, compaction: make whole_zone flag ignore cached scanner positions Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 02/11] mm, compaction: cleanup unused functions Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 03/11] mm, compaction: rename COMPACT_PARTIAL to COMPACT_SUCCESS Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18 9:01 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 04/11] mm, compaction: don't recheck watermarks after COMPACT_SUCCESS Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 6:12 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-16 6:11 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18 11:59 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18 9:03 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 05/11] mm, compaction: add the ultimate direct compaction priority Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 5:58 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-18 12:23 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 06/11] mm, compaction: more reliably increase " Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 6:07 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-16 6:31 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2016-08-18 9:10 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-18 9:44 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-18 9:48 ` Michal Hocko
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 07/11] mm, compaction: use correct watermark when checking compaction success Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 08/11] mm, compaction: create compact_gap wrapper Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 6:15 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-16 6:15 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 6:41 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-18 12:13 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 09/11] mm, compaction: use proper alloc_flags in __compaction_suitable() Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 10/11] mm, compaction: require only min watermarks for non-costly orders Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 6:16 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-16 6:36 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-16 6:46 ` Joonsoo Kim
2016-08-18 12:20 ` Vlastimil Babka
2016-08-10 9:12 ` [PATCH v6 11/11] mm, vmscan: make compaction_ready() more accurate and readable Vlastimil Babka
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=d32f4619-e7a8-863a-bf94-4cbc0b452630@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).