From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758793AbcBYA3Q (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:29:16 -0500
Received: from LGEAMRELO13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:50501 "EHLO
	lgeamrelo13.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756505AbcBYA3P (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:29:15 -0500
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.127
X-Original-MAILFROM: iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.138
X-Original-MAILFROM: iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:30:33 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, vbabka@suse.cz,
        mgorman@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: limit direct reclaim for higher order allocations
Message-ID: <20160225003032.GA9723@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
References: <20160224163850.3d7eb56c@annuminas.surriel.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1602241414260.5955@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
 <1456352276.25322.7.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1456352276.25322.7.camel@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 05:17:56PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 14:15 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > 
> > > For multi page allocations smaller than PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER,
> > > the kernel will do direct reclaim if compaction failed for any
> > > reason. This worked fine when Linux systems had 128MB RAM, but
> > > on my 24GB system I frequently see higher order allocations
> > > free up over 3GB of memory, pushing all kinds of things into
> > > swap, and slowing down applications.
> > > 
> > 
> > Just curious, are these higher order allocations typically done by
> > the 
> > slub allocator or where are they coming from?
> 
> These are slab allocator ones, indeed.
> 
> The allocations seem to be order 2 and 3, mostly
> on behalf of the inode cache and alloc_skb.

Hello, Rik.

Could you tell me the kernel version you tested?

Commit 45eb00cd3a03 (mm/slub: don't wait for high-order page
allocation) changes slub allocator's behaviour that high order
allocation request by slub doesn't cause direct reclaim.

Thanks.